A newly surfaced video of NYC mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani has ignited outrage and alarm across the city’s political and civic spectrum — and for good reason. Credit: AP
New polling suggests the election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor will cause nearly half of Israelis to avoid New York City.
In a nationwide survey conducted Nov. 6, 46% of respondents said they would avoid visiting New York in light of the mayoral election results; 34% said they would travel as usual, and 20% were undecided. The poll sampled 501 adults and carries a ±4.4% margin of error.
Asked about Mamdani himself, 83% of Israelis surveyed said they view him as antisemitic, while 8% disagreed and 9% were unsure. New York—home to the largest Jewish community outside Israel—has long been a favored destination for Israeli tourists, which makes the potential shift in travel habits notable.
Mamdani, a 34-year-old democratic socialist, won Wednesday’s contest after rivals Andrew M. Cuomo and Curtis Sliwa conceded.
In his victory remarks, he pledged to confront antisemitism and presented an inclusive message to Muslim residents, saying City Hall under his leadership would stand with Jewish New Yorkers and affirm a sense of belonging for more than a million Muslims in the city.
Party movement linked to Mamdani and AOC rejects Gaza deal, endorses ‘Palestinian resistance’
However, Jewish critics of Mamdani see his remarks as an attempt to smooth over his image after refusing to condemn the slogan “globalize the intifada,” embracing BDS policy and threatening to have Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrested if he travels to New York.
The poll’s timing—immediately after the vote—captures initial reactions rather than long-term behavior. Still, the results highlight a divide between Israeli public sentiment and parts of the American Jewish electorate, a split that has surfaced repeatedly in recent years over Israel-related politics in major U.S. cities.
Mamdani is due to take office on Jan. 1 for a four-year term.
For two hours on Sunday, Israel held its breath. Not because of the ongoing hostage crisis in Gaza or the endless obstacles Hamas continues to put up in returning the bodies it holds, but because of a far stranger story – involving one of the country’s most senior legal figures.
The story began last July, when military police entered the Sde Teiman detention facility, where terrorists who took part in the October 7 attacks were being held, and arrested several IDF guards following allegations of abuse.
The arrests came after a doctor documented wounds on a Palestinian detainee that raised suspicions of extreme assault.
In the end, five guards were charged with assaulting the prisoner – a Hamas police officer accused of attacking a guard during a search. According to the indictment, the soldiers used a taser on the prisoner, kicked him and stepped on him while he was handcuffed, breaking several ribs.
As expected, the Military Advocate General’s Office came under fire for charging soldiers at a time of war. Weeks later, a video was leaked to Channel 12 from a security camera in the prison which was said to have documented the alleged abuse – although the clip was inconclusive because soldiers were seen blocking the view of the camera with their shields.
Fast forward to last week: Military Advocate-General Maj.-Gen. Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi resigned suddenly on Friday after police determined that she was the source of the leak of the surveillance video showing the alleged abuse at Sde Teiman. Investigators further alleged that members of the Military Advocate General’s Corps (MAG) had lied to the High Court of Justice when they claimed in an affidavit that the leak did not come from within their ranks.
Then came Sunday afternoon. Rumours spread that Tomer-Yerushalmi might have killed herself by suicide after she had been missing for hours, had reportedly left behind a note telling her family to look to the future and her car had been found near a beach in north Tel Aviv. Police launched a large-scale search involving naval units, drones equipped with thermal sensors, and rescue teams combing the coastline.
Hours later, she was found alive on a beach in Herzliya. Her phone, believed to contain crucial evidence, was missing and remained unaccounted for as of Tuesday. By Sunday night, she had been taken into custody, and the following morning a court extended her remand for three days, with the judge warning that releasing her could jeopardise the investigation.
At first glance, the story looked like a domestic scandal – a senior legal official accused of breaching trust and abusing her authority. One could even frame it as a clash of two sides: on one hand, the soldiers who claim they are being unfairly persecuted for crimes they claim they did not commit; on the other, Tomer-Yerushalmi, who admitted to leaking the video in what she described as an effort to “counter the false propaganda directed against the military law authorities”.
But it is far more than that. Her actions have inflicted enormous damage – internationally, by undermining Israel’s legal credibility abroad, and domestically, by eroding what little faith remains in its judicial institutions.
The international consequences may take time to measure. One of the bedrock principles of international criminal law is complementary jurisdiction – the idea that international tribunals, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), intervene only when a nation proves unwilling or unable to conduct genuine investigations or prosecutions of serious crimes. In other words, the ICC serves as a court of last resort, meant to complement, not replace, a functioning national judiciary.
Israel has long relied on that principle to defend itself from foreign interference. The government and the IDF have consistently argued that Israel’s prestigious legal system – with its independent Supreme Court, vocal press and internal military investigations – is proof that it can and does hold itself accountable.
Yet that defence now looks weaker than ever. The ICC has already issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant. The International Court of Justice continues to deliberate South Africa’s genocide case. These processes were already dismissive of Israel’s claim to self-policing. Now, with the head of the MAG herself accused of leaking sensitive material and lying to Israel’s own High Court, what credibility remains?
If the body tasked with ensuring legal oversight of the IDF cannot be trusted to tell the truth to its own judges, why would the international community believe that its investigations into alleged war crimes in Gaza are conducted in good faith? This case risks becoming a gift to Israel’s adversaries – a validation for those arguing that Israel’s justice system is compromised.
The domestic picture is no less grim. Public confidence in the courts is already at a historic low, below 50 per cent in recent surveys. Much of that mistrust stems from the bitter judicial overhaul crisis that dominated Israel in the year before October 7.
Add to that the ongoing corruption trial of Netanyahu, which to many of his supporters – and even to US President Donald Trump – looks like a politically motivated witch hunt.
Against that backdrop, Tomer-Yerushalmi’s admission that she leaked evidence in a case against IDF reservists feeds directly into the narrative of a “deep state” – an unelected legal oligarchy that operates by its own rules and punishes ideological opponents while shielding its own.
The implications are profound. Every future investigation into misconduct –whether by soldiers in Gaza, police officers in the West Bank, or politicians in Jerusalem – will now be overshadowed by suspicion. Every verdict will invite the question: is this justice or politics?
For a country already fractured, this scandal could not have come at a worse time. Israel is still deployed in Gaza, bracing for a potential new round in Lebanon, and struggling to recover from the trauma of the worst attack in its history. The legal system was one of the few institutions still regarded as capable of self-correction.
The coming weeks will determine whether Tomer-Yerushalmi’s case is an aberration or a symptom of deeper decay. But one thing is already clear: the integrity of Israel’s legal system is not a technical matter. It is a pillar of national security. If Israelis lose faith in their own justice system – and the world loses faith in Israel’s ability to deliver justice – then the damage will extend far beyond the walls of a courtroom. It will reach the very core of Israel’s legitimacy, at home and abroad.
The writer is a co-founder of the MEAD policy forum, a senior fellow at JPPI, and a former editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post. His newest book is ‘While Israel Slept’
(AP) – British police said Friday that 11 people were arrested the previous night around the highly charged Europa League soccer match in Birmingham between English Premier League side Aston Villa and Maccabi Tel Aviv, a match that saw fans of the Israeli team banned.
In an update Friday, West Midlands Police said five of those arrested were on suspicion of racially aggravated offenses. The others included failure to comply with orders and breaching the peace.
The police force deployed more than 700 officers around the Villa Park stadium over concerns of clashes between pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli groups.
Though tensions were high ahead of the match, there were no serious incidents.
BIRMINGHAM, ENGLAND – NOVEMBER 6: Muslim men perform their evening prayer outside Villa Park ahead of the UEFA Europa League 2025/26 League Phase MD4 match between Aston Villa FC and Maccabi Tel-Aviv FC at Villa Park on November 6, 2025 in Birmingham, England. (Photo by Charlotte Wilson/Offside/Offside via Getty Images)
A pro-Palestine protest was held outside the stadium before kick-off, where hundreds turned up with Palestinian flags and anti-Israeli banners.
There was a flashpoint as a woman holding an Israeli flag walked past but she was quickly escorted away by police before it escalated.
There was also a counter-Israeli protest at the other side of Villa Park, with protesters holding up signs reading “Keep antisemitism out of football.” Five vehicles were driven past the ground carrying electronic billboards showing messages opposing antisemitism.
One of the messages, beside a Star of David, read “Ban hatred not fans” while another carried a quote from French soccer legend Thierry Henry saying football is not about goals but bringing people together.
LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM – 2025/11/06: Police mounted on horses guarded Villa Park Stadium in Birmingham separating pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian groups. Both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian groups protested as Israeli football team Maccabi Tel Aviv clashed with Aston Villa in a Europa League showdown. Maccabi fans were banned from the fixture over concerns of safety as 700 Police patrolled the controversial event. Final score in the match: Aston Villa 2 | Maccabi Tel Aviv 0. (Photo by Lab Ky Mo/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
The match, which Aston Villa won 2-0, was in the spotlight after officials in Birmingham decided last month to ban visiting fans from attending. The decision was widely criticized, including from British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, but lauded by others, who said Maccabi fans have a recent history of violence.
West Midlands Police said it had deemed the match to be high risk “based on current intelligence and previous incidents,” including violence and hate crimes that took place when Maccabi Tel Aviv played Ajax in Amsterdam last season.
Following the furor, Maccabi announced they would decline any away tickets for the clash.
The ban came at a time of heightened worries about antisemitism in Britain following a deadly attack on a Manchester synagogue last month and calls from Palestinians and their supporters for a sports boycott of Israel over the war against Hamas in Gaza. Hopes that the recent ceasefire would ease tensions appear premature.
(Breitbart) Austrian police captured a Hamas cache of pistols smuggled into the country and hidden for use in future terrorist attacks, while British police simultaneously arrested a man in relation to the weapons.
A suitcase containing five handguns and ten magazines was discovered in a rental locker in Austrian capital Vienna on Thursday. Although possession of a handgun with the correct licence and background checks, it was stated these weapons had been smuggled into the country by Hamas operatives to be hidden as a “cache” available to terrorists.
According to the investigation that led to the capture, “Israeli or Jewish institutions in Europe were likely to be the targets of these attacks” by a “global terrorist organisation with ties to Hamas”.
Austria’s Interior Minister Gerhard Karner praised the international cooperation that led to the discovery and vowed: “zero tolerance towards terrorists”. Per Austria’s best-selling newspaperKronen Zeitung, the weapons cache is linked to the capture last month of a whole alleged Hamas terror cell in Berlin. In that case, German prosecutors said German citizens Abed Al G. and Ahmad I, and Lebanese-citizen Wael FM were allegedly plotting to assassinate prominent German Jews.
Those men had procured an AK-47-type rifle and several handguns, as well as a “significant” quantity of ammunition. Other recent arrests have also centred around the existence of Hamas weapons caches hidden across Europe. As reported in October:
In 2023, seven men were arrested across Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands over an alleged plot to locate and excavate a lost Hamas weapons cache buried underground and then use it to launch attacks against the European Jewish community.
As reported in December 2023, the group had allegedly made several attempts to locate and dig up the claimed cache but had been unsuccessful. Responding to the arrest at the time, Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency said of the plot that the men intended to “kill innocent civilians on European soil… to attack Israeli, Jewish and Western targets at any price”.
Simultaneous with Thursday’s weapons-bust in Austria, the British FBI-analogue the National Crime Agency made an arrest of a 39-year-old British citizen. He is said to have had “close ties to the weapons cache” in Vienna.
Republican Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, one of the most outspoken allies of President Donald Trump and among the most forceful pro-Israel voices in Congress, is expected to formally announce her long-anticipated candidacy for governor of New York on Friday, according to reports widely cited by Politico and corroborated by Israel National News.
Stefanik’s campaign, which insiders describe as both “strategic and symbolic,” will launch with a polished video presentation followed by a statewide tour—an ambitious effort designed to unify New York’s Republican base and recapture the energy of the Trump era. According to Israel National News, Stefanik has already secured the backing of several key Republican Party leaders and influential elected officials, marking a strong organizational foundation even before her formal declaration.
While a campaign spokesperson declined to comment ahead of Friday’s announcement, party insiders quoted by Israel National News say the congresswoman’s message will focus on “restoring security, sanity, and integrity to the Empire State.” Her launch will likely strike a tone of populist defiance—against both Albany’s entrenched bureaucracy and the ascendant radical left movement embodied, in Stefanik’s words, by “pro-Hamas, anti-police extremists now holding power in New York City.”
Stefanik, 40, has represented New York’s 21st Congressional District, encompassing much of the North Country, for six consecutive terms. Over that time, she has evolved from a moderate Republican staffer with a Harvard pedigree into one of the most recognizable figures of the GOP’s populist wing. Her political evolution has mirrored the ideological realignment of the Republican Party itself under Trump’s influence—a shift that places patriotism, national sovereignty, and unambiguous support for Israel at the center of conservative identity.
As the report in Israel National News noted, Stefanik’s commitment to Israel has been neither symbolic nor rhetorical. During her visit to Jerusalem in May 2024, she addressed the Knesset in a speech that was both pointed and emotional, directly criticizing then-President Joe Biden’s “tepid and inconsistent” policy toward Israel during its war against Hamas. “America’s role is not to lecture Israel but to stand beside her without hesitation or apology,” she declared, earning bipartisan applause from Israeli lawmakers.
That visit, according to the Israel National News report, marked a turning point in her national profile. Stefanik emerged not merely as a regional congresswoman, but as a foreign policy voice—one who understood that the struggle against terror abroad is inseparable from the defense of democratic values at home.
Stefanik’s move toward a gubernatorial run comes amid escalating tensions in New York’s political climate. Governor Kathy Hochul, still reeling from criticism over crime rates, the migrant crisis, and economic stagnation, has become a symbol of what Stefanik calls “New York’s moral decay.” Her repeated attacks on Hochul in recent months have sharpened into a broader narrative about the state’s ideological drift—one that she portrays as a direct threat to Jewish and pro-Israel communities.
Following Tuesday’s election of Zohran Mamdani as New York City’s new mayor—a Democratic Socialist whose controversial record includes outspoken criticism of Israel—Stefanik delivered a blistering statement tying Hochul to the city’s leftward spiral.
“Under Kathy Hochul’s weak, catastrophic leadership,” she wrote, “New York City has now fallen to a pro-Hamas, Defund the Police, Tax-Hiking, Antisemite Jihadist Communist. She is truly the worst governor in America with her desperate endorsement of Commie Mamdani.”
The remarks, reported by Politico and echoed in the Israel National News report, capture Stefanik’s combative political style—a mix of sharp populist rhetoric and ideological conviction. Her choice to frame Mamdani’s victory as a warning sign for all New Yorkers underscores her broader campaign theme: that the battle for New York’s future is not merely political but moral and cultural.
According to the information provided in the Israel National News report, Stefanik’s criticism resonates deeply within New York’s Jewish communities, which have watched with alarm as antisemitic incidents in the state—and particularly in New York City—have surged dramatically since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 massacre in Israel. For many, Stefanik’s words strike a chord long ignored by establishment politicians reluctant to confront the ideological roots of the hate now flourishing on college campuses and in city streets.
One of the defining moments in Stefanik’s recent political career—and a key driver of her national popularity—was her grilling of elite university presidents during a December 2023 House Education Committee hearing on campus antisemitism. Her relentless questioning exposed the moral bankruptcy of academic institutions that refused to condemn explicit calls for genocide against Jews.
The Israel National News report lauded Stefanik’s performance as “a watershed moment in the fight against antisemitism in America,” noting how her moral clarity transcended party lines. Clips of her interrogation went viral across social media, galvanizing both Jewish and non-Jewish Americans who were appalled by the universities’ equivocation.
Her rhetorical precision and unapologetic defense of Jewish students instantly elevated her from a congressional committee member to a moral standard-bearer. In the days that followed, Israel National News and other outlets observed that Stefanik had accomplished what few elected officials had managed in recent years—forcing the American elite to confront its own hypocrisy regarding antisemitism cloaked in “progressive” activism.
Stefanik’s gubernatorial ambitions are intimately tied to her relationship with President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly praised her as one of the “most courageous voices in Congress.” According to the information provided in the Israel National News report, Trump privately encouraged her to run, viewing her as a formidable candidate capable of energizing both conservative and centrist voters in a state long dominated by Democrats.
Trump had once considered appointing Stefanik as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, a role that would have placed her at the forefront of defending Israel on the global stage. However, concerns about maintaining the GOP’s narrow House majority led to the idea being shelved. Sources cited in the Israel National News report say that Trump’s advisors now see her gubernatorial campaign as an opportunity to expand the pro-Israel conservative coalition in a state where Jewish voters play a pivotal role.
If elected, Stefanik would become New York’s first Republican governor since George Pataki left office in 2006—and one of the youngest governors in state history. More importantly, say observers quoted by Israel National News, she would symbolize the reinvigoration of a conservative movement grounded not in corporate interests or technocratic moderation, but in faith, family, and patriotism.
Her critics, especially on the progressive left, deride her rhetoric as “polarizing.” Her supporters, however, see something different: conviction. They argue that in an era of moral relativism and cultural confusion, Stefanik’s clear sense of right and wrong—particularly regarding Israel—makes her one of the few national figures willing to confront the ideological rot consuming Western institutions.
As the Israel National News report indicated, Stefanik’s campaign is far more than a state-level contest. It represents a referendum on leadership, morality, and courage at a time when the Jewish people and their allies face unprecedented global hostility. Her candidacy, therefore, is not only a bid for Albany—it is a battle for the soul of New York.
If history is any guide, Elise Stefanik’s campaign launch will ignite both fervent opposition and passionate support. But as her allies told Israel National News, that’s precisely how she wants it. In an age of moral grayness, she has chosen the side of clarity. And in a state where too many politicians whisper, she intends to speak out—loudly, unapologetically, and with conviction.
In a disturbing revelation that shines a spotlight on the accelerating normalization of antisemitism in digital spaces, the Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) has sounded the alarm over an online store hosted by Shopify that is openly selling apparel emblazoned with the hate slogan “Death, death to the IDF.” The phrase—an explicit call for violence against Israeli soldiers and, by extension, Jews worldwide—has triggered outrage from Jewish advocacy organizations and human rights monitors, who argue that this incident reflects a growing pattern of corporate complacency toward the online commercialization of hate.
According to a November 3rd report on the CAM website, the store in question operates under the “Punk With a Camera” brand and gained notoriety after sharing an Instagram reel on June 30 featuring the same chant. The slogan was first popularized days earlier at the Glastonbury Festival in the United Kingdom, when the British rap duo Bob Vylan led crowds in the incendiary refrain. The aftermath was immediate: the Community Security Trust (CST), which monitors antisemitic activity in the UK, recorded the single highest daily total of antisemitic incidents the very next day.
The report at CAM noted that while the artists themselves have faced widespread condemnation, the spread of their message into online commerce marks a dangerous escalation—turning rhetoric into revenue, and slogans of hate into wearable ideology. “What we are witnessing is not free expression but the monetization of incitement,” CAM said in a statement. “This is an explicit violation of Shopify’s own rules, as well as the most basic moral standards of civil society.”
Shopify, the Canadian e-commerce giant that powers millions of online stores, appears on paper to maintain strong prohibitions against violent or hateful content. Its Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) explicitly bans merchants from “calling for or threatening violence against specific people or groups.” Moreover, in August 2024—after mounting criticism for hosting racist and antisemitic merchandise—the company expanded its public-facing help documentation to forbid “products promoting hateful content, violence, gore, profanity or offensive content” through its checkout and payment systems.
But as the Combat Antisemitism Movement and other watchdogs have observed, the problem lies in enforcement—or the lack thereof. Shopify’s policy structure is split across multiple documents, creating technical loopholes that allow extremist merchants to remain active even while violating the platform’s stated principles.
As the CAM report explained, the AUP governs what sellers can host on their websites, while the newer help-page restrictions apply to payment processing and visibility in Shopify’s consumer app. This bureaucratic fragmentation enables the company to claim adherence to ethical standards while failing to remove offending merchants until public pressure mounts. “It’s a system built for plausible deniability,” CAM commented. “Shopify can point to its policies as proof of virtue while hate groups continue to profit under its infrastructure.”
This incident is far from isolated. Earlier this year, Shopify belatedly removed the online store operated by rapper Kanye West after it began offering swastika-themed merchandise, an action it took only after widespread condemnation. The Combat Antisemitism Movement has also documented the persistence of other brands using Shopify’s services to sell “Global Intifada” apparel, which glorifies anti-Israel violence and calls for a worldwide uprising against Jews.
Such merchandise, CAM argues, directly violates the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism, which identifies “calls for, aiding, or justifying violence against Jews” as antisemitic. CAM has repeatedly urged corporations, including Shopify, to adopt and apply the IHRA definition as an operational standard for content moderation and product review. “Had Shopify implemented IHRA criteria in its vetting process,” CAM stated, “this merchandise would never have been approved for sale in the first place.”
Shopify often points to its “Report a Merchant” feature as a mechanism for community policing. The form includes a “Threat of violence” option for reporting policy violations. Yet according to CAM and other advocacy groups, this system places the burden of enforcement on the public rather than the platform itself.
“It is neither fair nor effective to expect Jewish organizations and private citizens to act as unpaid compliance officers for multi-billion-dollar tech corporations,” said a CAM spokesperson. “The responsibility to uphold ethical standards lies with the host platform—not with those harmed by its negligence.”
Shopify’s inaction, they argue, is not merely a failure of enforcement but a moral abdication. By allowing such merchants to operate, even temporarily, the company is not simply turning a blind eye—it is profiting from the digital infrastructure that sustains hate.
At the heart of CAM’s criticism is the notion that commerce can no longer hide behind neutrality. The sale of merchandise calling for the death of Jewish soldiers—or anyone—crosses the boundary between political expression and incitement. “The distinction between speech and violence collapses when money changes hands,” noted the recent CAM report. “Every transaction becomes an act of participation.”
Indeed, CAM points out that chants such as “Death, death to the IDF” cannot be dismissed as mere political hyperbole. Within the framework of IHRA’s definition, such language constitutes an unambiguous call for violence against Jews. “It is antisemitism in its purest and most lethal form,” CAM warned, “and the fact that it is now being commercialized only deepens the outrage.”
The group has called on Shopify’s leadership to immediately remove the “Punk With a Camera” store, issue a public apology, and commit to a comprehensive review of its internal content moderation systems. They have also urged governments and regulatory bodies to hold e-commerce platforms accountable for enabling the dissemination of extremist propaganda.
The Combat Antisemitism Movement has consistently highlighted how the internet has transformed antisemitism from a fringe ideology into a mainstream social contagion. The group’s research shows that online hate campaigns have become exponentially more sophisticated since October 7, 2023—the date of Hamas’s massacre in Israel—when global antisemitic incidents surged to levels unseen in decades.
CAM’s analysts have traced how social media algorithms, music festivals, and online merchandising intersect to create ecosystems of radicalization. What begins as a chant at a concert can morph into a viral slogan, then a digital product, and finally a symbol of belonging within extremist subcultures. “What we’re witnessing is the industrialization of antisemitism,” CAM concluded in a recent briefing. “Technology companies must decide whether they will be bystanders—or partners in prevention.”
CAM has encouraged individuals to take immediate steps to pressure Shopify into enforcing its own rules. Concerned users can report the “Punk With a Camera” store using Shopify’s “Threat of violence” reporting form, attaching the Instagram reel and screenshots that clearly display the “Powered by Shopify” footer. CAM also recommends citing Shopify’s own AUP language, which prohibits calls for violence, and its help-page clause forbidding “products promoting hateful or violent content.”
“This is not simply about one store or one slogan,” CAM emphasized. “It’s about setting a precedent. If we tolerate this, we normalize it. If we act, we draw the line.”
The episode now places Shopify at the center of a broader moral reckoning confronting the technology sector. As CAM and other advocacy groups have warned, corporations that profit from the infrastructure of hate can no longer claim innocence through omission. “Every company that builds or hosts an online marketplace must understand that its choices shape the moral landscape of our time,” said a CAM representative. “To sell hate is to endorse it.”
For the Combat Antisemitism Movement, the issue extends far beyond a single retailer or platform. It is a litmus test for whether Western society will uphold its values in an era when commerce, politics, and ideology collide in the cloud. “Antisemitism has always adapted to the technologies of its age,” CAM concluded. “The question now is whether our ethics will adapt quickly enough to stop it.”
As tensions mount along the Israel–Lebanon border, Hezbollah’s latest defiance—a categorical rejection of any negotiations with Israel and a reaffirmation of its refusal to disarm—has thrust Lebanon once again into the crosshairs of Middle Eastern volatility. In a development that underscores the fragility of last year’s U.S.-brokered ceasefire, the Iran-backed terrorist organization has openly denounced the very idea of diplomacy, vowing to preserve its vast arsenal of weapons in direct violation of Lebanese commitments.
According to a report that appeared on Thursday in The Algemeiner, Hezbollah’s open letter addressed to Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri lays bare the group’s hostility toward any semblance of reconciliation. “Any attempt at political negotiations with Israel does not serve Lebanon’s national interest,” the letter declared, framing talks as capitulation and asserting Hezbollah’s “legitimate right to resist occupation.” The militant faction further insisted that “the weapons that defended Lebanon will not be up for negotiation,” positioning itself as the self-appointed guardian of Lebanese sovereignty—even as its actions threaten to plunge the country into renewed conflict.
The Algemeiner report noted that this incendiary declaration came at a time when both U.S. and Israeli officials have been quietly pressing Beirut to resume dialogue with Jerusalem to enforce the disarmament clause of the ceasefire agreement signed last year. That accord—brokered by Washington and supported by Egypt—stipulated that Hezbollah must fully disarm within four months in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal from the five strategic positions it occupies in southern Lebanon. But with that deadline long past and Hezbollah’s defiance growing bolder, the truce appears to be eroding rapidly.
In its latest correspondence, Hezbollah accused the Lebanese government of “haste” in agreeing to disarmament, claiming the decision had “enabled Israel to exploit the situation.” The Algemeiner reported that the letter framed Israel as an aggressor seeking to “blackmail Lebanon into surrendering its sovereignty.” Such rhetoric, however, belies a far more complex reality—one in which Hezbollah’s entrenched political and military dominance continues to paralyze Lebanon’s fragile democracy and undermine its sovereignty.
Lebanon’s political leadership now faces a stark dilemma: comply with its international obligations and risk domestic upheaval or continue appeasing Hezbollah and risk another devastating war with Israel. In either case, the country remains hostage to the dual pressures of Iranian influence and Western demands. As The Algemeiner report observed, “Hezbollah’s weapons are not simply tools of resistance—they are the instruments of Iran’s regional strategy, tethering Lebanon’s fate to Tehran’s ambitions.”
In response to Hezbollah’s renewed provocations, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have intensified airstrikes on targets across southern Lebanon. The Israeli military confirmed that its latest operation targeted a facility used by Hezbollah operatives to “produce equipment used to restore terror infrastructure.” The strikes, according to the information provided in The Algemeiner report, were retaliation for Hezbollah’s ongoing ceasefire violations, including drone incursions and the movement of armed units near the border.
The ceasefire’s terms were explicit: Hezbollah was to withdraw its forces north of the Litani River—approximately 15 miles from the Israeli frontier—and disarm completely under government supervision. Yet in the months following the agreement, Hezbollah has done the opposite. Intelligence sources cited by The Algemeiner reveal that the group has been “actively rebuilding its operational capacity,” engaging in the smuggling of arms and cash through Syrian routes, constructing underground bunkers, and embedding rocket launchers in civilian areas to deter Israeli retaliation.
In a statement released last week, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz accused Beirut of deliberate negligence. “The Lebanese government’s commitment to disarm Hezbollah must be implemented,” Katz asserted. “We will not allow any threat to the residents of the north.” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, echoing Katz’s warning, reiterated Israel’s right to act under the ceasefire’s self-defense clause. “We expect the Lebanese government to uphold its commitments, namely, to disarm Hezbollah,” Netanyahu said. “But we will do what is necessary to ensure our people’s safety.”
Hezbollah’s defiance cannot be viewed in isolation. As The Algemeiner consistently emphasizes, the organization’s strength—and its intransigence—derive directly from Iranian support. Tehran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) continues to channel funds, weapons, and training to Hezbollah, viewing the group as a forward operating arm of Iranian power in the Levant.
Analysts quoted by The Algemeiner suggest that Hezbollah’s escalating rhetoric and militarization are part of a larger Iranian strategy to maintain leverage amid shifting regional alliances. As Arab nations deepen ties with Israel under the Abraham Accords, Iran seeks to reassert its influence through proxy conflicts. “Hezbollah’s actions,” one security expert told the publication, “are designed to remind the world that Iran can still ignite the northern front whenever it chooses.”
Lebanon’s inability—or unwillingness—to curb Hezbollah’s activities has left it increasingly isolated on the international stage. Western diplomats privately acknowledge that while disarmament remains a condition of continued U.S. support, the Lebanese state lacks both the political will and the institutional capacity to confront Hezbollah without triggering civil unrest. In the words of one European envoy cited in The Algemeiner report, “Lebanon has become a state within a militia, rather than a militia within a state.”
The collapse of the 2024 ceasefire agreement now appears imminent. According to information contained in The Algemeiner report, the deal—hailed at the time as a major diplomatic breakthrough—was predicated on reciprocal restraint: Israel would scale back its military operations in southern Lebanon, and Hezbollah would relinquish its arsenal and military authority. The Lebanese government, in turn, was expected to restore sovereignty over its southern territories through its national army.
Yet none of these provisions have materialized. The Lebanese Armed Forces remain underfunded and politically constrained, while Hezbollah continues to operate freely, often overshadowing state institutions. In effect, Lebanon has outsourced its national defense to a militant organization that answers not to Beirut, but to Tehran.
U.S. officials have privately expressed frustration with Lebanon’s failure to uphold its commitments. As The Algemeiner reported, Washington has signaled that continued economic assistance to Lebanon could be contingent on tangible steps toward disarmament. Egypt, which has offered to mediate renewed talks between Beirut and Jerusalem, has thus far been unable to bridge the widening gulf between the parties.
Within Lebanon, public opinion remains deeply divided. Some view Hezbollah as a necessary bulwark against Israel, while others see it as the primary architect of the nation’s decline. The group’s promise to “stand with our army and people in defending our sovereignty” rings hollow for many Lebanese who blame Hezbollah for entangling their country in endless wars and economic ruin.
As The Algemeiner reported, Hezbollah’s threats of mass protests and civil unrest if disarmament proceeds have paralyzed Beirut’s leadership. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and President Aoun face mounting domestic pressure to restore stability while navigating the perilous intersection of foreign and internal demands. Aoun, in a recent statement, accused Israel of “escalating strikes despite Lebanon’s openness to dialogue,” portraying his government as both victim and intermediary. Yet, as The Algemeiner report observed, Aoun’s overtures toward negotiation ring increasingly hollow in light of Hezbollah’s open defiance and his own unwillingness to confront it.
For Israel, the stakes are existential. The Algemeiner report indicated that Hezbollah’s rearmament south of the Litani River constitutes not only a violation of the ceasefire but also a direct threat to Israeli security. The IDF’s recent strikes reflect a strategy of “preemptive deterrence”—a calculated effort to disrupt Hezbollah’s operational capacity before it can launch a full-scale offensive.
Israeli military analysts cited in The Algemeiner report warned that Hezbollah now possesses tens of thousands of rockets and precision-guided missiles, posing a strategic threat far greater than that of Hamas in Gaza. Moreover, the group’s growing integration into Lebanon’s political system complicates Israel’s response, making it increasingly difficult to target Hezbollah without destabilizing the Lebanese state itself.
As Netanyahu remarked this week, “We will not allow Lebanon to become a renewed front against us. The choice remains with Beirut: enforce the ceasefire or face the consequences.”
In many ways, this unfolding crisis mirrors past cycles of escalation. Each attempt at peace or containment has foundered on Hezbollah’s refusal to disarm and Lebanon’s inability to compel it. The Algemeiner report pointed out that since the end of the 2006 Lebanon War, United Nations resolutions calling for the demilitarization of southern Lebanon have been ignored, while Hezbollah’s influence has only expanded.
Today, the threat is more acute than ever. With regional tensions inflamed by Iran’s ongoing confrontation with Israel and the West, and with Lebanon teetering on the brink of economic collapse, even a minor border incident could ignite a broader conflagration.
As the Algemeiner report noted, the next few weeks will determine whether Lebanon steps back from the precipice or slides deeper into chaos. The United States and its allies must decide how to balance diplomacy with deterrence, while Israel must weigh the risks of restraint against the dangers of inaction.
Hezbollah’s defiance, its letter asserts, is grounded in “resistance.” But resistance to what? To peace? To sovereignty? To accountability? For Lebanon’s beleaguered citizens, the true enemy may no longer be external—it may be the militant entity that claims to protect them.
As The Algemeiner report observed, Hezbollah’s weapons no longer defend Lebanon—they imprison it. And unless Beirut finds the courage to reclaim its state from the grip of a terrorist organization, the country risks being dragged once more into the darkness of war.
A fierce political confrontation is taking shape inside New York City Hall, as two Democratic lawmakers—each representing sharply divergent wings of the party—vie for the powerful position of City Council Speaker, a post that will determine whether Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s socialist agenda encounters friction or free rein. As The New York Post reported on Thursday, the contest between Crystal Hudson of Brooklyn, a progressive ally of Mamdani, and Julie Menin of Manhattan, a centrist Democrat and outspoken supporter of Israel, has become the most consequential political battle in the city since the mayoral election itself.
The rivalry came to a head this week at the SOMOS political retreat in Puerto Rico, where both contenders hosted dueling events aimed at wooing undecided councilmembers. Against the backdrop of Mamdani’s stunning victory—one that sent shockwaves through both local and national Democratic circles—the outcome of the speaker’s race now carries implications far beyond municipal governance. As The New York Post report observed, it is not simply about who will wield the gavel; it is a test of how deeply Mamdani’s radical influence will seep into the city’s governing institutions.
Councilwoman Crystal Hudson, representing Brooklyn’s 35th District, has emerged as the standard-bearer for the progressive left inside the council. A self-described reformist with close ties to labor unions and Democratic Socialists of America organizers, Hudson was one of the first sitting lawmakers to publicly endorse Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. The New York Post report noted that she served as a “crucial liaison” between Mamdani’s insurgent team and the city’s progressive bloc, helping to mobilize younger voters and activist networks that ultimately propelled him to victory.
Her allies argue that Hudson’s ascension to the speakership would signal a “new era of cooperation” between the City Council and the incoming mayor’s office after years of friction between progressive lawmakers and outgoing Mayor Eric Adams. “Crystal represents the future,” said one Brooklyn Democrat quoted in The New York Post report. “She understands the energy that elected Zohran Mamdani and wants to build on that momentum rather than fight it.”
Hudson’s supporters also portray her as a unifier capable of bridging ideological divides. But critics say her ties to Mamdani—who has faced condemnation for anti-Israel rhetoric and past affiliations with movements such as Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS)—could further alienate the city’s Jewish community at a time when antisemitic incidents are on the rise.
On the other side of the spectrum stands Julie Menin, a seasoned policymaker, attorney, and former commissioner under both Mayors Bill de Blasio and Eric Adams. Currently representing Manhattan’s Upper East Side, Menin has earned a reputation as a steady centrist, a pragmatic Democrat grounded in fiscal responsibility, public safety, and unflinching support for Israel.
According to the information provided in The New York Post report, Menin’s candidacy has galvanized moderate Democrats, civic leaders, and members of the city’s Jewish community who are alarmed by the direction of the new administration. Her allies describe her as the “last line of defense” against Mamdani’s hard-left agenda and a crucial counterbalance in a city where ideology increasingly threatens to eclipse practicality.
“New Yorkers need a Speaker who will defend our communities, not one who rubber-stamps anti-Israel rhetoric,” one councilmember told The New York Post, pledging support for Menin. “Julie understands what’s at stake—she knows this city’s heartbeat.”
The New York Post report indicated that the race for City Council Speaker—typically a quiet, insider-driven affair—has transformed into a high-stakes ideological referendum. The speakership is widely considered the second most powerful position in city government, controlling not only the council’s legislative agenda but also its oversight authority and budgetary leverage. Whoever secures the role will either act as a co-governor with Mamdani or as his institutional counterweight.
Hudson’s allies, particularly in Brooklyn and Queens, argue that aligning the council leadership with Mamdani’s progressive vision could streamline governance and advance long-stalled initiatives on housing, climate, and police reform. Yet Menin’s supporters, including several influential unions and business groups, warn that a Hudson victory would embolden radical factions whose priorities—such as defunding the NYPD, imposing new taxes on businesses, and slashing ties with Israel—could destabilize both the city’s economy and its global reputation.
As The New York Post reported, Mamdani’s election has already created tremors in Albany and Washington, where centrist Democrats fear that New York’s hard-left experiment could become a model for socialist movements elsewhere. The speaker’s race, in that sense, has become a symbolic struggle for the soul of the Democratic Party in America’s largest city.
The speakership requires the support of at least 26 of the council’s 51 members, and both Hudson and Menin are furiously courting potential swing votes. According to the information contained in The New York Post report, the Brooklyn delegation—the largest and most organized in the council—is expected to rally around Hudson, but that bloc alone is unlikely to secure victory. Menin, by contrast, has quietly assembled a cross-borough coalition that includes moderates from Queens, the Bronx, and Manhattan, as well as key endorsements from labor unions, real estate groups, and prominent Jewish organizations concerned about Mamdani’s ideological trajectory.
Political strategists quoted in The New York Post report describe Menin’s coalition-building as “methodical and disciplined,” a deliberate contrast to the fervent but fragmented energy of the progressive wing. “Julie’s strategy is about reassurance,” one veteran consultant explained. “She’s telling New Yorkers: there’s still room for common sense in this city.”
Hudson, meanwhile, has leaned heavily on grassroots support and activist enthusiasm. Her team has framed Menin as part of the “establishment machine” resistant to change, a narrative designed to rally the younger, more left-leaning members of the council. Yet as The New York Post report pointed out, even some progressives are wary of tethering themselves too closely to Mamdani, whose openly socialist platform—including proposals for rent freezes, free public transit, and sharp tax increases—has sparked anxiety among business leaders and moderate voters.
Perhaps no issue has defined the Hudson–Menin contest more sharply than Israel. In a city home to the largest Jewish population outside Israel, Mamdani’s anti-Zionist positions and flirtation with extremist slogans such as “Globalize the Intifada” have provoked deep unease. The New York Post has chronicled growing concerns among Jewish organizations that Mamdani’s rise—and the prospect of a sympathetic council speaker—could embolden antisemitic activism within municipal spaces.
Menin’s campaign has seized on this unease, emphasizing her long record of solidarity with Jewish communities. As chair of the Council’s Small Business Committee, she has worked closely with synagogues and Jewish nonprofits to rebuild post-pandemic commerce in neighborhoods such as the Upper East Side and Washington Heights. “Julie Menin stands for unity,” said a rabbi quoted in the The New York Post report. “She understands that support for Israel is not a partisan issue—it’s a moral one.”
Hudson, by contrast, has sought to walk a careful line, publicly condemning antisemitism while defending Mamdani’s right to “criticize Israeli policy.” But her dual messaging—combined with her close alliance to the new mayor—has done little to reassure skeptics. “Actions speak louder than press statements,” said one council insider to The New York Post. “If Hudson wins, the message to Jewish New Yorkers will be that their concerns don’t matter.”
As the city prepares for Mamdani’s inauguration, the race for the speakership has become the final battle in defining the tone of his administration. A Hudson victory would solidify the new mayor’s power, aligning the legislative and executive branches under a shared progressive banner. It would likely accelerate policies aimed at wealth redistribution, expanded social programs, and reimagining public safety—all pillars of Mamdani’s platform.
A Menin victory, on the other hand, would serve as a brake on ideological overreach, ensuring that City Hall maintains a measure of balance and accountability. It would also signal to the broader electorate—and to the national Democratic establishment—that New York City remains tethered to pragmatic governance despite its leftward drift.
“The future of New York’s political identity is on the line,” The New York Post declared in an editorial this week. “Will it be a city guided by ideology or by common sense?”
What makes this contest uniquely consequential, as The New York Post report noted, is that it encapsulates a deeper identity struggle—not just within the City Council but within the soul of the city itself. New York has long prided itself on being both fiercely progressive and profoundly practical, a place where diverse voices coexist within the constraints of real-world governance. But with a socialist mayor poised to take office, that delicate equilibrium may soon be tested as never before.
Whether Crystal Hudson’s idealism or Julie Menin’s pragmatism prevails, the outcome will reverberate far beyond City Hall. It will shape how New York confronts the twin challenges of economic recovery and social polarization—and, perhaps most importantly, determine whether the city’s leadership still has the courage to stand unapologetically with its Jewish community and the democratic values it represents.
As The New York Post report observed, “The speaker’s race is no longer a procedural formality—it’s a battle for the very conscience of New York.”
The New York City skyline is seen behind a plane approaching Newark International Airport in Newark, N.J., Thursday, Nov. 6, 2025. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)
(AP) – Travelers will have fewer flight options within the U.S. starting Friday as the Federal Aviation Administration imposes schedule cuts at 40 major airports to ease the strain on air traffic controllers during the record-long government shutdown.
The head of the agency says the move is unprecedented but necessary to keep people safe as staffing shortages and unpaid work increasingly take a toll on the controllers.
Most of them worked six days a week and put in mandatory overtime even before the shutdown, but they have been doing so without paychecks as lawmakers fail to agree on a way to reopen the government.
Airports in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and other airline hubs will be impacted, according to the FAA’s order, which was published Thursday evening. Hundreds of flights scheduled for Friday already were canceled as of late Thursday afternoon. But that number is likely only to increase in the days ahead, as reductions are ramped up from 4% on Friday to 10% by Nov. 14.
Passengers also could face delays and packed flights heading into the weekend and beyond.
Here’s what to know about the cutbacks — and what to do if your trip gets disrupted.
Is my airport on the list?
There’s a good chance it is. The list spans more than two dozen states.
It includes the nation’s busiest airport, Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Georgia, as well as the main airports in Anchorage, Boston, Denver, Honolulu, Las Vegas, Miami, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Boston, and Anchorage.
In some metropolitan areas, including New York, Houston, Chicago and Washington, multiple airports will be impacted.
The reductions are between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. local time and impact all commercial airlines, according to the FAA.
How long will this go on?
It’s hard to say. Even if the shutdown ends soon, the FAA has said it would not lift the flight restrictions until staffing at airport towers and regional air traffic center makes it safe to do so.
“It’s going to take time to work through this,” said Michael Johnson, president of Ensemble Travel, an association of travel agencies in the U.S. and Canada.
That’s why, he said, it’s important to plan ahead — whether you’ve already booked flights or you’re just starting to make holiday travel plans.
Passengers were expected to get notified by airlines on Thursday if their flights are canceled. But it’s a good idea to check your airline’s app or a flight-tracking site for updates before you leave for the airport.
Airlines say they are trying to minimize the impact on their customers, some of whom will see weekend travel plans disrupted with little notice. United Airlines, for example, says it would focus the cuts on its regional routes that use smaller planes.
My flight was canceled. Now what?
“Take a deep breath. Don’t panic,” Johnson said. “There are options available. They may not be ideal, and they may be inconvenient, but you have options.”
If you’re already at the airport, it’s time to get in line to speak to a customer service representative. While you’re waiting, you can also call or go online to connect to the airline’s reservations staff. It can also help to reach out on X because airlines might respond quickly there.
Now might also be the time to consider if it makes sense to travel by train, car or bus instead.
Kyle Potter, executive editor of Thrifty Traveler, said the shutdown is different from when a single airline is having problems and travelers can just pick another carrier. Shortages of air traffic controllers can create problems for entire airports and multiple airlines at once.
“The longer the shutdown drags on, it’s unlikely that there will be one airline running on time if the rest of the them are failing,” Potter said.
Can I get a refund or compensation?
The airlines will be required to issue full refunds, according to the FAA.
But they’re not required to cover secondary costs, such as food and hotel accommodations, unless a delay or cancellation results from a contributing factor that is within the control of the airlines, according to the Department of Transportation.
You can also check the Department of Transportation’s website to see what your airline promises for refunds or other costs if your flight is canceled or delayed.
Should I just stay home for the holidays?
Not necessarily. You might just need a little more planning and flexibility than usual. A travel adviser can help take some stress off your plate, and travel insurance may give you an extra safety net.
Johnson also warned that flights could sell out fast once the shutdown ends.
“There will be a flurry of booking activity,” he said. “So try to get ahead of it and make sure that you’re protected.”
Other tips
Travel light. Limiting baggage to a carry-on means one less airport line to deal with, and if your plans change unexpectedly, you’ll already have everything with you.
Be nice. Airline agents are likely helping other frustrated travelers, too, and yelling won’t make them more willing to help. Remember, the cancellations aren’t their fault.
“An extra ounce of kindness to yourself and to others at this time of year, with all of the disruptions, will go a long way,” Johnson said.
A video circulating widely across social media has ignited both curiosity and controversy, reportedly showing rapper and designer Kanye West—who has faced intense backlash for a series of antisemitic remarks over the past two years—meeting privately with Rabbi Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto, founder of the international Shuva Israel network.
According to a report on Thursday at VIN News, the short clip depicts what appears to be an intimate conversation between the Grammy-winning artist and the influential rabbi, known for his extensive following across Israel, the United States, and Morocco. In the video, West is heard expressing contrition for his past comments about Jews and Israel, saying, “I’m taking accountability for my recent antisemitic statements, attributing it to bipolar disorder. I really just appreciate you embracing me with open arms and allowing me to make amends.”
While the brief footage has prompted an outpouring of reactions, VIN News noted that neither the date nor the full context of the encounter has been independently verified, and Rabbi Pinto’s office has yet to release an official statement confirming or clarifying the meeting. Nonetheless, the viral video—if authenticated—could mark a significant turning point in West’s troubled public rehabilitation efforts.
As VIN News reported, the video shows West seated across from Rabbi Pinto in what appears to be a modest, private setting—possibly a study hall or synagogue meeting room. Rabbi Pinto, dressed in his customary black frock coat and white shirt, listens attentively as West speaks. The rabbi, who is regarded by many as both a spiritual leader and a figure of moral persuasion, does not respond verbally in the clip, though his expression suggests measured compassion.
Observers online have quickly split into two camps. Supporters argue that West’s willingness to seek dialogue with a prominent Jewish religious figure indicates an earnest attempt at personal growth and reconciliation. Critics, however, remain skeptical, questioning the timing and sincerity of his remarks and suggesting that West’s reference to bipolar disorder could serve as an excuse rather than genuine accountability.
In its coverage, VIN News underscored that the video’s veracity remains unconfirmed and that major fact-checking organizations have not yet validated the footage. Even so, the symbolism of such a meeting—between a global celebrity whose words have caused widespread harm and a revered rabbinic leader known for his outreach and interfaith efforts—has fueled extensive debate in both religious and entertainment circles.
Rabbi Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto has long held a unique position in the Jewish world, combining traditional Torah scholarship with a global outreach network under the banner of Shuva Israel. With institutions spanning from Ashdod and Jerusalem to New York, Miami, and Casablanca, Rabbi Pinto has cultivated relationships with business leaders, public officials, and cultural figures seeking spiritual guidance.
Kanye West, known as Ye, in meeting with Rabbi Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto says he’s “taking accountability” for his recent antisemitic statements, attributing it to bipolar disorder.
“I really just appreciate you embracing me with open arms and allowing me to make amends.”… pic.twitter.com/1oSY9RwwbX
As the VIN News report detailed, Rabbi Pinto is known for his teachings on compassion, charity, and teshuvah (repentance)—principles central to Jewish thought. His followers describe him as a man capable of engaging both the devout and the secular, guiding them toward moral self-improvement without judgment.
That West would approach Pinto, of all figures, carries a certain moral resonance. Rabbi Pinto’s leadership has often centered on the idea that no soul is beyond redemption, a message that aligns with the Jewish concept that repentance and humility can restore moral balance even after severe missteps. Yet, as the VIN News report observed, such forgiveness is predicated on sincerity—and the public remains divided over whether West has truly internalized the gravity of his previous offenses.
The controversy surrounding Kanye West’s relationship with the Jewish community began in late 2022 when he unleashed a series of antisemitic remarks on social media and during interviews. He invoked harmful tropes, praised Adolf Hitler, and made inflammatory statements about Jewish influence in entertainment and finance. These comments led to widespread condemnation, the severing of business partnerships—including his lucrative deal with Adidas—and significant financial losses.
Since then, West has periodically hinted at remorse but has often complicated his own attempts at repair through erratic behavior and inconsistent messaging. His reference in the new video to bipolar disorder echoes past claims he has made about his mental health, which he has alternately described as both a burden and a source of creativity.
As the VIN News report pointed out, attributing antisemitic statements to a psychiatric condition raises difficult ethical questions. While mental illness may explain impulsivity or poor judgment, it does not absolve individuals of moral accountability for speech that promotes hatred. “Accountability requires both acknowledgment and tangible change,” one religious commentator told VIN News. “Words of apology must be accompanied by actions that demonstrate understanding.”
Reaction to the viral clip has been swift and deeply polarized. Some social media users have hailed West’s outreach to a rabbi as “a courageous step toward healing,” while others have derided it as a calculated attempt at image rehabilitation amid continued ostracization from mainstream media and business circles.
As VIN News reported, the skepticism stems partly from the lack of transparency surrounding the meeting—no official statement, no clear date, and no indication of who initiated the contact. Several public relations experts quoted in the report suggested that, given West’s notoriety, any genuine act of contrition would need to be accompanied by sustained, long-term engagement with Jewish organizations rather than a single filmed encounter.
“The public has seen this pattern before,” said one crisis communications specialist cited by VIN News. “A celebrity under fire seeks the blessing of a religious or moral authority, hoping for instant absolution. But redemption is never that simple—it must be earned through time and consistent behavior.”
The timing of this incident is especially sensitive. As VIN News has documented extensively, antisemitic incidents in the United States have surged dramatically over the past two years, fueled in part by online hate speech and extremist ideologies. In that broader context, West’s prior remarks were not isolated celebrity outbursts—they became a megaphone that emboldened others.
Jewish leaders have repeatedly stressed that public figures bear extraordinary responsibility when discussing issues of race, religion, and identity. “When a person with West’s global influence traffics in antisemitic tropes, it doesn’t stay online,” said one New York rabbi quoted by VIN News. “It filters into classrooms, boardrooms, and street corners. It normalizes prejudice.”
If authentic, the video of West with Rabbi Pinto could represent the first meaningful step toward repairing that damage. But as the VIN News report cautioned, true teshuvah—repentance—requires more than confession. In Jewish ethics, repentance involves a fourfold process: acknowledgment of wrongdoing, remorse, restitution, and behavioral change. Without all four, the process remains incomplete.
At the time of this writing, key details remain murky. Neither West nor Rabbi Pinto has released an official statement, and representatives for both men have declined to comment. Independent verification agencies are still working to confirm the authenticity of the footage, which appears to have originated from a private account before being shared across multiple platforms.
Whether this encounter marks the beginning of West’s moral restoration—or merely another fleeting spectacle—will depend largely on his subsequent actions. If he follows through with sustained engagement, continued dialogue, and concrete steps to counter antisemitism, this could indeed become a watershed moment in his public life. If not, it may fade into the long history of celebrity apologies that evaporate as quickly as they appear.
What was meant to be an evening of transcendent music and cultural harmony descended into chaos at the Philharmonie de Paris on Thursday night when protesters disrupted a concert by the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, igniting a flare inside the hall and forcing emergency intervention. The shocking scene, described by witnesses and detailed in a report that appeared on Thursday at VIN News, captured the growing volatility surrounding pro-Israel cultural events in France amid a surge in anti-Israel demonstrations across Europe.
According to the information provided in the VIN News report, the disruption occurred midway through the orchestra’s performance, as several individuals in the audience began shouting slogans condemning Israel’s government and its ongoing military campaign against Hamas. Then, in a moment of reckless provocation, one protester reportedly lit a flare near the seating area, filling the grand concert hall with smoke and sparks. The flare briefly caught nearby seats on fire, sending waves of panic through the audience before firefighters and security personnel rushed to extinguish the flames.
Despite the commotion, the orchestra—led by acclaimed conductor András Schiff—continued to perform. In what the VIN News report described as “a moment of extraordinary composure and defiance,” Schiff and the musicians pressed forward with their program, playing Beethoven’s Fifth Piano Concerto and later a Chopin waltz to thunderous applause and a standing ovation. Many audience members viewed the decision to continue as an act of resilience—a symbolic stand against intolerance and disruption.
The concert, which had been scheduled months in advance, was intended as a celebration of Israel’s rich musical heritage and its world-renowned orchestra, one of the most respected symphonic ensembles in existence. But as VIN News reported, the event had already attracted controversy in the days leading up to the performance. France’s powerful labor union, the Confédération Générale du Travail (CGT), issued a statement demanding that organizers confront “Israel’s war crimes” and address what it called “the moral responsibility of cultural institutions” in the context of the conflict.
The union’s public call to action appeared to embolden demonstrators. By Thursday afternoon, small clusters of protesters had gathered outside the Philharmonie, waving Palestinian flags and chanting anti-Israel slogans. French security officials had reportedly anticipated demonstrations but did not expect an incident inside the venue itself.
As the VIN News report emphasized, the disruption raises urgent questions about whether French authorities are doing enough to safeguard Jewish and Israeli cultural events in the country. The act of setting off a flare in a packed concert hall—particularly one designed for acoustic precision rather than emergency evacuation—was not only a political statement but a dangerous provocation that could easily have ended in tragedy.
Eyewitnesses quoted in the VIN News report described a scene of confusion and fear that quickly gave way to defiant solidarity. “There was a flash of red light and then smoke,” said Ronen Segev, a pianist and managing partner at Park Avenue Pianos, who attended the concert and recorded part of the disruption on his phone. “For a few seconds, people didn’t know what was happening. But then the musicians kept playing—and the audience realized this was their answer to hate. Everyone began to clap.”
The video Segev captured quickly went viral, circulating across social media platforms and drawing both outrage and admiration. In the footage, the serene yet determined faces of the orchestra’s musicians stand in stark contrast to the chaos surrounding them. As the music swells, the smoke lingers like a physical manifestation of the hostility the performers have long endured.
The VIN News report observed that this incident follows a troubling pattern in which cultural spaces have become flashpoints for anti-Israel activism in Europe. In recent months, several concerts, art exhibitions, and film screenings connected to Israeli artists have been interrupted or canceled after activists accused institutions of “complicity” with Israeli policy.
The flare incident at the Philharmonie de Paris did not occur in isolation. It reflects a broader wave of polarization gripping France, where debates over Israel’s military actions have increasingly spilled into public life—and often crossed into overt antisemitism. French authorities have reported a sharp uptick in antisemitic incidents since the outbreak of the Gaza conflict in October 2023, including vandalism of synagogues, attacks on Jewish-owned businesses, and intimidation at public events.
According to the information contained in the VIN News report, Jewish cultural organizations have grown deeply concerned that anti-Israel activism is veering into direct hostility toward Jews and Jewish institutions. “We are witnessing a conflation of politics and prejudice,” one Paris-based community leader told the outlet. “Targeting a symphony orchestra is not a protest—it is an assault on art, on freedom of expression, and on Jewish identity itself.”
In France, the line between anti-Israel protest and antisemitic provocation has often been blurred. The VIN News report cited several examples of this disturbing trend, including the harassment of Jewish students at universities and attempts to boycott Israeli academic collaborations. Thursday night’s events, many observers fear, signal a further deterioration of civic discourse.
For the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, which has long embodied Israel’s cultural excellence and international prestige, the Paris disruption was both a challenge and a testament. Founded in 1936 by the Polish-born violinist Bronisław Huberman as a refuge for Jewish musicians fleeing Nazi persecution, the orchestra has historically stood as a symbol of resilience against hatred. That legacy seemed palpable on Thursday night, as its musicians refused to be silenced by intimidation.
As the VIN News report noted, “the Israel Philharmonic’s response—choosing harmony over hostility, music over mayhem—was itself a moral statement.” The concert, despite the attempted sabotage, ended not in panic but in standing applause. Many in attendance described the ovation as a “gesture of unity and defiance,” a spontaneous rebuke to those who sought to drown art in political aggression.
The VIN News report indicated that Thursday’s events carry implications well beyond a single concert. The question now confronting France—and much of Europe—is whether it can continue to guarantee the safety and dignity of artistic expression in an era of ideological extremism.
Cultural institutions, increasingly pressured to take sides in global conflicts, find themselves in precarious territory. The attack on the Israel Philharmonic was not simply an attack on an orchestra—it was an assault on the universal idea that art can transcend politics, that music can be a sanctuary from the divisions of the outside world.
As one French commentator told VIN News, “When a symphony becomes a battlefield, it’s not only a tragedy for the Jewish community—it’s a tragedy for civilization.”
The Philharmonie incident, therefore, serves as both a warning and a rallying cry. It reminds us that antisemitism, however cloaked in political language, remains a force that threatens not only Jews but the very fabric of democratic and cultural life. And yet, amid the smoke and the noise, the music played on—defiant, unbroken, and profoundly human.
A growing scandal surrounding the embattled International Criminal Court (ICC) chief prosecutor Karim Khan has taken a darker turn following revelations that the Qatari government allegedly financed a covert campaign to discredit one of his sexual harassment accusers. According to explosive findings published by The Guardian of the UK and reviewed in detail by Israel National News, the Qatari regime reportedly hired a private London-based intelligence firm to conduct surveillance, gather personal information, and construct defamatory narratives targeting the woman who accused Khan of coercive sexual behavior.
The firm—identified as Highgate—and a smaller subcontractor allegedly compiled extensive data on the woman and her family, including her child, in what appears to be an effort to silence or intimidate her. Israel National News reports that internal documents reviewed by investigators revealed that Highgate executives referred to their client only as a “Q country,” carefully avoiding the explicit mention of Qatar by name, even in internal correspondence.
What makes this revelation particularly striking, the report at Israel National News observed, is the allegation that Highgate’s operatives sought to fabricate supposed connections between the accuser and the State of Israel—a strategy that suggests a cynical attempt to weaponize political tensions to deflect attention from Khan and his mounting misconduct allegations.
The woman at the center of the case, herself a lawyer employed at the ICC, told The Guardian that the revelations were “deeply disturbing.” Her statement, quoted by Israel National News, reflected both disbelief and fear: “The idea that private intelligence firms have been instructed to target me is as incomprehensible as it is heartbreaking.”
The accuser’s complaint, initially filed in 2023, accused Khan of coercive sexual advances and misconduct during his tenure as the Court’s top prosecutor. Her allegations prompted an internal ICC ethics inquiry, which later expanded following a second woman’s report of similar behavior. The second accuser, who interned under Khan in The Hague in 2009, told investigators that he persistently harassed her—pressuring her to work at his home, where he allegedly initiated unwanted physical contact and attempted to persuade her to engage in further sexual acts.
As Israel National News reported, these testimonies have triggered the most serious internal crisis in the ICC’s two-decade history, casting doubt on the integrity of an institution already struggling to maintain credibility amid accusations of selective justice and political bias.
The timeline of events has only deepened suspicions surrounding Khan’s motives and the ICC’s impartiality. Within three weeks of the first woman’s complaint becoming public, Khan announced that his office was seeking arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, alleging war crimes in Gaza.
As Israel National News has repeatedly noted, the proximity between the sexual harassment allegations and the decision to target Israeli leaders has fueled claims that the prosecutor’s actions were politically motivated—or worse, an attempt at personal diversion.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Khan’s pursuit of Israeli officials was part of an urgent push to reassert authority amid the sexual misconduct scandal threatening to engulf him. His critics argue that he weaponized the ICC’s authority to deflect attention from his own moral and legal exposure.
Among the sharpest critics of Khan’s actions is Professor Anne Bayefsky, Director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust and President of Human Rights Voices, who spoke to Arutz Sheva – Israel National News. Bayefsky stated bluntly that Khan appeared to be “hoping to save himself by projecting that same perverse antisemitic thought process on the international law world.”
She added that the ICC’s selective outrage—aggressively pursuing Israel while ignoring far more egregious human rights violations elsewhere—reflects “a deep moral corruption at the heart of the institution,” one that mirrors the “political manipulation and moral cowardice that has long tainted the international legal system.”
As the Israel National News report emphasized, the role of Qatar in this unfolding scandal cannot be overstated. The Gulf emirate has long positioned itself as a key intermediary in regional diplomacy—particularly between the West and groups like Hamas—while simultaneously funding propaganda operations designed to shape international narratives around Israel and its military actions.
The new revelations expose what appears to be an extension of that same strategy into the sphere of international law. By financing a campaign to undermine Khan’s accuser—and allegedly attempting to link her to Israel—Doha may have sought to protect both its geopolitical interests and its investments in the ICC’s prosecutorial agenda.
The Qatari regime’s sophisticated use of influence operations and private intelligence contractors mirrors tactics it has employed in other controversies, from European lobbying scandals to media manipulation. The Israel National News report noted that this latest episode fits a broader pattern: Qatar leveraging financial resources to mold political outcomes, even within institutions ostensibly dedicated to justice and human rights.
The scandal surrounding Khan and Qatar’s alleged involvement arrives at a time when the ICC’s reputation is already under unprecedented strain. Over the past year, the Court has faced accusations of bias, incompetence, and politicization from multiple corners of the international community.
As the Israel National News observed, the ICC’s record has been particularly controversial with regard to Israel, whose leaders and soldiers have repeatedly faced politically charged investigations, while egregious human rights abuses in countries such as Iran, China, and Syria often go unpunished.
The Khan scandal, Israel National News reported, has reignited long-standing debates about whether the ICC has been subverted by the same anti-Israel sentiment that pervades much of the international legal establishment. “The notion that a sitting prosecutor could be protected by a foreign government while targeting the world’s only Jewish state is not merely ironic,” one commentator told the outlet, “it’s obscene.”
Indeed, the allegations strike at the heart of the ICC’s legitimacy. The idea that the Court’s top prosecutor may have been shielded by a state sponsor of Hamas while simultaneously pursuing charges against Israeli officials paints a grim portrait of institutional decay and ideological corruption.
Khan, for his part, has temporarily stepped aside from his position, pending the outcome of the internal investigation. His legal team has categorically denied all allegations, stating that he has “never engaged in sexual misconduct of any kind.” They have suggested that the accusations are politically orchestrated attempts to discredit him following his issuance of arrest warrants for both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli leaders.
Nevertheless, as the Israel National News report pointed out, the mounting evidence of Qatari interference—coupled with the timing of Khan’s prosecutorial decisions—makes it increasingly difficult to separate the personal from the political. The scandal underscores how the ICC, conceived as a beacon of impartial justice, may now be serving as a tool of geopolitical maneuvering, manipulated by states and actors seeking to weaponize its authority.
In its analysis, Israel National News concluded that the Qatar–Khan affair exposes not just the vulnerability of one man but the fragility of the entire international justice system. The use of private intelligence firms to silence accusers, the weaponization of legal proceedings to deflect accountability, and the opportunistic targeting of Israel all point to a system in moral freefall.
The ICC, once envisioned as a global tribunal above politics, has become entangled in the very power games it was created to restrain. As Professor Bayefsky told Israel National News, “This is not justice—it is theater. And behind the curtain stands a network of regimes and bureaucrats for whom truth is expendable, and the Jewish state remains the ultimate scapegoat.”
If the allegations against Khan and Qatar are proven true, the consequences could extend far beyond The Hague—casting a long shadow over international law itself and confirming what many in Israel, and increasingly in the West, have suspected all along: that the moral compass of global justice has been decisively broken.
Princeton University is launching a new anthropology course on “Gender, Reproduction, and Genocide” in Gaza, a class whose description puts the Israel-Hamas war on par with the Holocaust. The for-credit, graded course is being taught by a “noted Palestinian feminist” who has made provably false claims that Hamas did not kill babies or rape women on Oct. 7, and also called for an end to the Jewish state.
“Drawing on decolonial, Indigenous, and feminist thought, we examine how genocidal projects target reproductive life, sexual and familial structures, and community survival,” the course description reads. “Students will engage reproductive justice frameworks, survivor testimony, and Palestinian feminist critiques of colonial violence, while situating Gaza within comparative histories of the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, and genocide against Black and Indigenous populations.”
Undergraduates who take the class can get credit toward an anthropology major or toward a minor in “gender and sexuality studies.”
Instructing the course is Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, a scholar who “retired” under pressure last year from her professorship at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem after she was suspended—and arrested and briefly detained for incitement—for her inflammatory, anti-Israel rhetoric.
The suspension came in March 2024, after Shalhoub-Kevorkian accused Israel and its supporters of lying about Hamas’s atrocities, including rapes and killing babies. She also said the State of Israel should be destroyed.
“It’s time to abolish Zionism,” she said, according to the Times of Israel. “It can’t continue, it’s criminal. Only by abolishing Zionism can we continue. They will use any lie. They started with babies, they continued with rape, and they will continue with a million other lies. We stopped believing them, I hope the world stops believing them.”
She also claimed Israelis act scared when they hear her speaking Arabic, adding they “should be afraid because criminals are always afraid. They cannot dispossess my land, they cannot displace my people. They cannot kill and not be afraid, so they better be afraid.”
In late March, Shalhoub-Kevorkian changed her tune and, according to a university official she met with, “clarified” that, as a feminist, she believed Oct. 7 victims’ claims that they were raped. She did not retract her allegation that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza.
Seven months later, Princeton welcomed Shalhoub-Kevorkian to its anthropology department as a Global South Visiting Scholar. She was later named the Stanley Kelley, Jr., Visiting Professorship for Distinguished Teaching.
Princeton, which is a relatively small university that does not have medical, law, or business schools, is by far the wealthiest university in the country when measured by enrollment, with $4 million in its endowment per full-time student.
The university’s president, Christopher Eisgruber, has largely flown under the radar while his Ivy League counterparts at far larger Columbia, Penn, and Harvard universities—which are more dependent on federal grants—were forced to resign over their handling of campus anti-Semitism.
The Trump administration suspended dozens of Princeton’s federal grants—totaling roughly $200 million—in April, but half of those were restored by August.
Shalhoub-Kevorkian’s course—and her presence on campus in an exalted visiting professorship—could bring fresh scrutiny to Princeton.
Among the required readings is an essay titled “Reprocide in Gaza: The Gendered Strategy of Genocide Through Reproductive Violence,” by Hala Shoman, a former Gazan dentist and self-described political and social activist. Reprocide, she writes, is “the systematic targeting of a group’s reproductive capacities … as a deliberate strategy of erasure.”
“Israel has weaponized reproductive health through direct military targeting, siege conditions, forced displacement, environmental toxicity, and gendered violence,” Shoman wrote, arguing the Jewish state has intentionally bombed fertility clinics and “has created conditions in Gaza that make pregnancy dangerously high-risk.”
Shoman also alleged Israel has widowed nearly 14,000 women and cited Salama Maarouf, the head of Gaza’s Government Media Office, without noting Hamas controls the agency.
A Princeton spokeswoman directed the Washington Free Beacon to the university’s academic freedom and free expression webpage, but did not comment further.
The Museum at the Fashion Institute of Technology in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan. Credit: Ajay Sureshvia Wikimedia Commons.
(JNS) The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law said on Thursday that the U.S. Department of Education will be opening an investigation into the Fashion Institute of Technology over a complaint it, along with the Anti-Defamation League, filed against the school in September 2024.
The center said “Jewish students were subjected to severe and pervasive antisemitic harassment, discrimination and disparate treatment,” per the complaint. It also said the school violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, Rebecca Harris, a litigation staff attorney at the Brandeis Center, told JNS. (JNS sought comment from the Education Department.)
Denise Katz-Prober, director of legal initiatives at the Brandeis Center, told JNS that “one of the central allegations in our complaint is that there have been numerous Jewish students who reported to us that baseless complaints intended fully to harass them were being filed against Jewish students, essentially weaponizing the internal grievance against the Jewish students to further harass them.”
The Jewish students reported facing doxxing, threats and harassment simply for being in the vicinity of anti-Israel protests, she reported, adding that “the school told them that they could not proceed with their complaint.” And yet, the school moved forward with investigations of the “baseless, frivolous, false” complaints filed by anti-Israel protesters against the Jewish students, per Katz-Prober.
“They’re selectively enforcing their disciplinary procedures,” she said.
“This is problematic on a campus that has a hostile environment and where Jewish students are all experiencing severe harassment and discrimination on the basis of their Jewish identity,” Katz-Prober said. “It undermines their confidence in the very mechanisms that are intended to redress harassment and discrimination.”
Other allegations in the complaint included “graffiti justifying Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre” and Jewish students facing online harassment, “deriding them as ‘Zionist pigs’” and being told that “we don’t do enough to bully the Zionists,” according to Katz-Prober.
She further noted that a Jewish student’s offer to be president of a student club was rescinded because she was “deemed to be a supporter of Israel.”
Katz-Prober said that in May, the organization had learned that the Education Department would be investigating the complaint; however, the Brandeis Center decided to announce it now “to explain the context” as to why it is filing an amicus brief in support of a Jewish student who is remaining anonymous in her suit against FIT.
For its part, a university spokesman told JNS that “FIT does not and will not tolerate antisemitism.”
‘Punch a Zionist’
The Brandeis Center filed the brief on Thursday to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the court should overrule the lower court’s decision denying the student, referenced pseudonymously as “Jane Doe,” the ability to proceed with the case anonymously.
The National Jewish Advocacy Center, not the Brandeis Center, is representing Doe in her suit, which was initially filed in January and amended the following month in the Southern District of New York. (JNS sought comment from the NJAC.)
In documents related to Doe’s suit obtained by JNS, she alleges that while walking through campus in February 2024, a nonstudent anti-Israel protester handed her a flier with a QR code to sign a petition accusing Israel of ethnic cleansing and genocide in Gaza. Doe “shoved the false and defamatory flier back to the person who handed it to her, inadvertently jostling the person who handed it to her,” per the suit.
Another protester proceeded to take Doe’s photo and posted it to multiple university social-media groups, causing Doe to face threats of violence. When she reported it to the school, she ended up being suspended for seven months. The school determined that she punched the protester, despite Doe’s assertions that any contact was incidental, the suit alleges.
The lawsuit alleges that FIT violated federal and state antidiscrimination laws in its treatment of Doe.
Harris told JNS that Doe meets the threshold to remain anonymous because she has “directly experienced personal threats of physical violence” and “she was on a campus where there were constantly chants and posters and stickers advocating for violence against students like her.”
The chants, posters and stickers featured phrases like “punch a Zionist” and “the only good Zionist is a dead Zionist,” according to Harris.
“We think the court undercounted both those specific incidents and also the general backdrop of antisemitism against which this is occurring,” she said. “In our brief, we really set forth tons of recent data, like studies, reports, anecdotal examples of antisemitism—violence, threats, ostracization that have occurred to American Jews, and specifically, Jewish students and academics on campuses.”
Harris said that among the citations in the brief are the hate-crime data compiled by the FBI, surveys from major Jewish American organizations and Gallup polls.
“We hear from students all the time who have faced terrible antisemitic discrimination and harassment, and they’re afraid to come forward publicly,” said Harris. “For us, it’s important to advocate on this issue so we have an avenue for students who are afraid to come forward to be able to do so anonymously.”
President Donald Trump speaks to reporters aboard Air Force One, October 19, 2025, en route to Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, as he returns from a trip to Florida. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)
By: Fern Sidman – Jewish Voice News
President Donald Trump confirmed Thursday that an international stability force would be deployed to the Gaza Strip “very soon,” calling the developing plan a milestone in his broader vision for a lasting peace in the Middle East. His remarks, which were reported by Israel National News, signal that the United States and its partners are preparing to implement one of the most consequential postwar arrangements since the October 7, 2023 Hamas atrocities that plunged the region into chaos.
Responding to a reporter’s question about when the multinational mission would begin operations, Trump said, “Very soon. It’s going to be very soon. Gaza is working out very well.” His confident tone reflected what the Israel National News report described as the culmination of months of complex diplomatic maneuvering involving Arab, European, and Asian partners, all coordinated through Washington to stabilize the war-torn enclave and prevent the resurgence of Hamas.
Trump went on to elaborate on the scope of the new arrangement, suggesting that several countries had already “volunteered” to contribute troops and logistical support to the force. “If there’s a problem with Hamas, as an example, or a problem with anything, they volunteer to, on a single basis, go in and take care of it,” he said.
“This is a very strong peace,” the president continued. “This is peace in the Middle East.” He then issued a pointed warning to Hamas: “Hamas is a very small part of it. And if they don’t do as they said, if they don’t behave, then they’ve got themselves a big problem — a really big problem like they’ve never had.”
According to the information provided in the Israel National News report, Trump’s statement drew attention to his administration’s insistence that the new Gaza framework must combine humanitarian reconstruction with robust deterrence. The international stability force — envisioned as a hybrid peacekeeping and administrative coalition — will be tasked not only with securing Gaza but also with reestablishing governance, rebuilding essential infrastructure, and preventing Iranian-backed militias from filling the vacuum left by Hamas’s defeat.
Earlier this week, the United States circulated a draft resolution to key members of the United Nations Security Council proposing the creation of the Gaza stabilization mission for a minimum of two years. The text, first reported by Axios and later corroborated by Israel National News, lays out a broad mandate for participating nations — led by the United States — to provide both security and civilian administration through the end of 2027, with the possibility of extensions if conditions on the ground require.
Diplomatic sources cited in the Israel National News report described the draft as a “U.S.-brokered framework for responsible governance” aimed at preventing Gaza from reverting to militant control. The mission’s initial participants are expected to include regional states aligned with the Abraham Accords, as well as European nations with existing peacekeeping experience in Lebanon and the Sinai Peninsula.
The proposal’s contours reflect what observers have called “the Trump Doctrine 2.0” — a pragmatic but muscular approach to Middle Eastern diplomacy built on regional partnerships rather than unilateral U.S. occupation. Trump’s team has reportedly emphasized that the Gaza plan is not an open-ended commitment but a transitional security and reconstruction initiative, designed to empower local civil authorities under international supervision while ensuring Israel’s security needs remain paramount.
Under the U.S.-brokered ceasefire agreement, Hamas was obligated to release all hostages within 72 hours in exchange for a phased cessation of hostilities and humanitarian aid corridors. As Israel National News has detailed, the terrorist organization met only part of its obligations — releasing the 20 remaining living hostages but stalling on the transfer of the bodies of those who were murdered in captivity.
On Wednesday night, Hamas returned the body of Joshua Loitu Mollel, a Tanzanian agricultural student who was abducted during the October 7 attack on Kibbutz Nahal Oz. According to the report at Israel National News, Mollel’s repatriation brought a somber mix of relief and grief to both Israeli and African officials. However, Hamas continues to withhold the remains of six deceased hostages, a violation of both the ceasefire agreement and international humanitarian law.
The partial compliance has angered both the Israeli government and the U.S.-led coalition shaping the postwar Gaza order. Trump, in his Thursday remarks, alluded to these continuing infractions, warning that “if Hamas doesn’t do as they said, if they don’t behave,” the consequences would be severe.
As the Israel National News report noted, his statement was widely interpreted as a green light for the new international force to engage directly if Hamas attempts to reconstitute its terror infrastructure or obstruct the ceasefire’s humanitarian terms.
The deployment of an international force marks a historic pivot in the Gaza crisis — one that Israel National News described as “a blend of deterrence and diplomacy unseen since the Camp David Accords.” Unlike past multinational peacekeeping efforts that often excluded Israel from decision-making, the current plan was reportedly drafted with full Israeli coordination and approval.
Israel’s military achievements against Hamas — including the decimation of its tunnel network, the elimination of senior commanders, and the destruction of rocket arsenals — have created what the Israel National News report termed “a strategic window” for regional stabilization.
Several Arab states, particularly those that normalized ties with Israel under the Abraham Accords, are said to view participation in the Gaza stabilization mission as an opportunity to demonstrate regional responsibility and counter Iranian influence. Reports indicate that the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Egypt, and Morocco are in advanced discussions about contributing to reconstruction and security components of the mission.
Meanwhile, Qatar, long accused of financing Hamas, remains under diplomatic scrutiny. Its role in any future arrangement remains uncertain, given its prior mediation efforts and deep financial entanglements in Gaza.
Despite Trump’s confident assurances, analysts cited by Israel National News caution that implementing the plan will not be without significant challenges. The fragmented political landscape in Gaza, ongoing security risks, and the humanitarian crisis left in Hamas’s wake create a volatile environment.
Moreover, integrating international troops into a densely populated and politically charged territory poses logistical and ethical complexities. As the Israel National News report noted, questions remain over the precise rules of engagement, coordination mechanisms with Israel, and the future governance structure that will eventually replace the international presence.
Yet the underlying logic of the initiative, as articulated by Trump and supported by Israel’s leadership, rests on a fundamental premise: that the cycle of war and reconstruction in Gaza must be broken. By introducing an international buffer and a credible governance framework, Washington hopes to end the era of Hamas’s dominance and restore a semblance of order to a region long trapped in turmoil.
Trump’s remark that “Gaza is working out very well” may strike some observers as overly optimistic, but as Israel National News reported, it reflects the president’s conviction that military victory must now yield political structure. The international stability force — unprecedented in both composition and mandate — is being framed as the linchpin of that transformation.
For Israel, whose northern and southern borders remain tense amid Iranian provocations and Hezbollah’s threats, the emergence of a U.S.-led security architecture in Gaza represents both strategic relief and moral vindication. It affirms Israel’s right to security while signaling to the world that, under Trump’s stewardship, peace in the Middle East is not an abstraction but a policy built on deterrence, partnership, and accountability.
As the dust settles from one of the most traumatic periods in modern Israeli history, the coming weeks will test whether this vision — ambitious, fragile, and undeniably historic — can translate from diplomatic blueprint to reality on the ground.
In a development that has reverberated across the Middle East and Central Asia, Kazakhstan is reportedly preparing to join the Abraham Accords, the historic framework of normalization agreements between Israel and Arab or Muslim-majority nations first brokered under President Donald Trump nearly five years ago.
As reported by The Jewish News Syndicate (JNS) on Thursday afternoon, the decision by Kazakhstan—a strategically positioned, energy-rich nation straddling Europe and Asia—to enter the circle of peace represents both a diplomatic milestone and a symbolic reaffirmation of the Accords’ vitality. While early skeptics once dismissed the initiative as a transient experiment in transactional geopolitics, Kazakhstan’s accession demonstrates that the framework continues to yield tangible dividends for Israel’s integration into the broader Islamic world.
“Is anyone getting tired of more peace?” remarked Mike Waltz, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, in a pointed echo of the optimism that characterized the original signing ceremonies in Washington in 2020. His rhetorical question carried a dual meaning—celebrating both the durability of the accords and the continued resonance of Trump-era diplomacy in reshaping regional alliances.
According to the information provided in the JNS report, Kazakhstan’s decision was greeted “warmly” by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, whose chair Betsy Berns Korn and CEO William Daroff hailed the move as an “extraordinary advancement of regional peace and cooperation.”
“Strengthening and expanding this historic initiative advances Israel’s security and prosperity,” they stated, “and marks a major step toward greater peace, stability, and cooperation in the Middle East and beyond.”
For Israel, the implications are profound. Kazakhstan—a Muslim-majority nation of nearly 20 million people—has maintained full diplomatic and economic relations with the Jewish state for over three decades. As the JNS report noted, those ties have long been rooted in mutual respect and pragmatic engagement. Kazakhstan’s entry into the Abraham Accords will now formalize its alignment with a growing network of nations committed to dialogue, economic cooperation, and the shared pursuit of stability.
As the JNS report highlighted, the Conference of Presidents underscored that its relationship with Kazakhstan stretches back more than 20 years, beginning with the organization’s first mission to the Central Asian nation. Since that time, Kazakhstan has earned a reputation as a rare beacon of interfaith harmony in the Muslim world—a country that not only tolerates but actively supports Jewish life within its borders.
“For more than two decades, the Conference of Presidents has cultivated a close relationship with Kazakhstan,” the organization’s leaders said in a statement cited in the JNS report. “We have witnessed Kazakhstan’s enduring support for Jewish life, its consistent promotion of religious tolerance, and its strong bilateral ties with both Israel and the United States.”
In this respect, Kazakhstan’s decision is neither opportunistic nor abrupt. It is the culmination of a long-standing foreign policy that prizes moderation and engagement over confrontation. The country’s president, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, has positioned his government as a bridge between the Muslim world, Israel, and the West—an approach that aligns seamlessly with the spirit of the Abraham Accords.
The entry of Kazakhstan also serves as a reminder of the transformative impact of the diplomatic architecture envisioned under President Trump. As the JNS report frequently emphasized, the Abraham Accords did more than normalize relations between Israel and countries like the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan—they established a new diplomatic paradigm predicated on shared interests, mutual respect, and the rejection of zero-sum ideology.
Korn and Daroff explicitly credited Trump’s leadership, asserting that his efforts “created new opportunities for diplomacy, partnership, and mutual understanding across the region.” They noted that the former president’s willingness to challenge long-standing diplomatic orthodoxies brought about “a new era of pragmatic peace that has reshaped the political topography of the Middle East.”
Indeed, Trump’s critics, who once derided the Accords as symbolic photo opportunities, now find themselves contending with a steadily expanding coalition of Muslim-majority nations deepening their engagement with Israel.
As JNS has repeatedly observed, each new member state not only strengthens Israel’s security and legitimacy but also further isolates Iran—the principal sponsor of anti-Israel militancy and disinformation in the region.
Kazakhstan’s move signals an evolution in the Abraham Accords’ scope and reach. Unlike the original signatories—most of which are located in the Middle East and North Africa—Kazakhstan occupies a unique geopolitical position, connecting the Islamic world to the broader Eurasian continent.
“The decision deepens ties between Israel and the broader Arab and Muslim world,” said the Conference of Presidents, as quoted in the JNS report, “and renews the Accords as a living framework for regional cooperation.”
Beyond symbolism, the practical opportunities are immense. Kazakhstan is one of the world’s largest producers of uranium and natural gas, and its participation could pave the way for joint ventures in energy technology, agriculture, cybersecurity, and water management—areas where Israeli innovation is world-renowned.
Moreover, Kazakhstan’s accession could serve as a catalyst for further integration across Central Asia, potentially inspiring neighbors such as Uzbekistan or Azerbaijan to consider deepening their own partnerships under the umbrella of the Accords.
In a further gesture of goodwill, the Conference of Presidents used the occasion, as JNS reported, to urge the U.S. Congress to repeal the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, a Cold War-era statute that restricts trade with former Soviet republics over human rights concerns.
“Graduating Kazakhstan from the Jackson-Vanik Amendment,” the group stated, “would affirm Kazakhstan’s modern record and strengthen the partnership that the Abraham Accords now extend.”
Such a move would symbolize Washington’s recognition of Kazakhstan’s evolution into a reliable ally—one that champions religious pluralism, supports Jewish life, and actively contributes to the stabilization of a volatile region.
Among those praising Kazakhstan’s decision was Rabbi Marc Schneier, long time rabbinic leader of The Hampton Synagogue and president of the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, who has met with President Tokayev multiple times in Astana. In comments published in the JNS report, Schneier highlighted the moral irony that while a Muslim-majority country is choosing peace, certain Western leaders are moving in the opposite direction.
“In joining the Abraham Accords,” Schneier said, “how ironic that yet another Muslim-majority country is publicly demonstrating its support for a two-state solution, while New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a democratic Jewish nation. He must get on the peace train before history leaves him behind.”
Schneier’s words encapsulate a broader truth—one that JNS has long articulated—that the moral courage to embrace coexistence increasingly resides outside the progressive enclaves of the West and within the pragmatic leadership of nations once thought implacably opposed to Israel.
The JNS report also cited Jason Brodsky, policy director at United Against Nuclear Iran, who framed Kazakhstan’s accession as a geopolitical counterpoint to Iran’s ongoing efforts to destabilize the region.
“Kazakhstan joining the Accords,” Brodsky observed, “is the answer of the U.S. government to the absurd statement of Oman’s foreign minister, who sounded like Iran’s regime’s lawyer at the recent Manama Dialogue, that Israel—not Tehran—is the region’s most destabilizing actor.”
Brodsky’s assessment shines a spotlight on how the Abraham Accords have become not merely a diplomatic project but a strategic bulwark against Tehran’s malign influence. Each new signatory expands the regional coalition committed to curbing Iran’s ambitions and promoting a vision of peace grounded in mutual respect and security.
As the JNS report observed, the inclusion of Kazakhstan in the Abraham Accords reaffirms that peace remains not only possible but contagious. Far from being an artifact of the past, the Accords have proven to be a living, breathing framework—one capable of adapting, expanding, and inspiring nations across cultural and geographic divides.
“Kazakhstan’s entry into the Abraham Accords expands the circle of peace, stability, and cooperation in the region,” the Conference of Presidents declared. “We encourage other nations to follow Kazakhstan’s example and join this transformative initiative.”
In an era marked by polarization, the message from Astana and Jerusalem alike is unmistakable: the pursuit of peace, prosperity, and coexistence remains a universal aspiration—and one that continues to transcend politics, geography, and ideology.
As US Ambassador to the UN, Mike Waltz quipped, the world is not yet “tired of more peace.” Neither, it seems, are those who continue to believe in the enduring promise of the Abraham Accords.
