PHOTO: SHUTTERSTOCK\ DROP OF LIGHT

Political careers generally end in failure, and Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau’s trajectory is a perfect example. Elected in 2015 with a huge parliamentary majority on a wave of personal popularity, his party now trails in the polls by 20-plus points, and he’s facing mounting calls to step down and make way for a successor to stop the party’s complete destruction at the next election, in late 2025.

His pool of allies is shrinking rapidly. More than 60 of his fellow 153 Liberal MPs are calling for his resignation, and his tottering premiership was dealt another blow when his finance minister and deputy prime minister, Chrystia Freeland, dramatically resigned, citing policy disagreements amid attempts to shunt her into a different department. Facing dire poll ratings and his own party turning on him, Justin Trudeau’s political career is nearing its end.

Meanwhile, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has successfully capitalized on public anger at the Trudeau administration’s failings, vowing to “build the homes, fix the budget, stop the crime, and axe the tax.” He looks poised to become the next Canadian prime minister. For an inside look at the people and politics behind Trudeau’s demise, and what a Conservative government might mean for Canada, Mishpacha spoke to Anthony Koch of the Quebec-based AK Strategies public affairs firm, who also served as a top aide to Pierre Poilievre.

When did it all start to go wrong for Trudeau?

Trudeau won a massive majority in 2015, but in 2019 and 2021, he only achieved minority wins. Both times, he got fewer votes than the Conservative Party, even though he won in terms of seats. He started off very popular, partly because the Conservatives had been in power for ten years. His decline started in 2018 when he became embroiled in a corruption scandal.

Housing prices are out of control. During Trudeau’s tenure, the cost of housing has more than doubled. Toronto and Vancouver are in the top five most expensive housing markets in the world. We’re producing fewer homes per capita than in the 1970s, but the population is many times more than it was then. Canada experienced very high inflation, and people’s top-line concern is cost of living. There’s also a backlash against woke culture, which the Liberals really doubled down on, and now people are fed up with it.

Young people helped Trudeau get elected. Current polling shows Poilievre’s strongest base is the young. The younger you are, the more likely you are to vote Conservative.

What’s been Trudeau’s biggest policy mistake?

Trudeau’s legacy will be that he shattered Canada’s cross-party consensus on immigration. Previously, every part of the spectrum, whether conservative or liberal, supported immigration. But they jacked up the numbers so hard and fast, there’s been a backlash. It’s made the housing crisis worse and public services have deteriorated, directly attributable to the change in immigration policy.

Do you think there’s anything that would persuade him to step down, or will it take a no-confidence vote to force him out?

He’s trying to reshuffle his cabinet and finding it difficult, because people realize this is the end of the road and they don’t want to join a sinking ship. Some 60-odd Liberal MPs are emboldened to call on him to go. The National Democratic Party (the third-largest party) leader said if Trudeau remains as PM, they will support a motion of no-confidence. The available paths for him to stay are rapidly shrinking. The party bigwigs will tell him the game is up and he should step down, for his own good and the good of the party. That’s the most likely scenario. He’s lost all his friends.

Who do you think would be the Liberals’ best hope to lead them into the election? Or, even if they can’t win, to mitigate their losses?

Chrystia Freeland was always popular with the caucus [the Canadian Parliamentary Conservative Party]. Eddie Goldenberg [former chief of staff to Liberal PM Jean Chrétien] says the party should just anoint her. She’s from the more centrist wing, rather than progressive. However, she doesn’t speak French and isn’t from Quebec, which in Canada is a big deal. Other contenders, the current foreign minister and current minister for industry, do speak French and hail from Quebec.

Crucially, the most talented people will most likely hold off running for now. Whoever takes this job will almost certainly lose the next election. They will understand that they’re a sacrificial lamb, and their job is to salvage as much as possible.

Do you think Trump will be more conciliatory vis-à-vis tariffs with a Conservative government?

Trump made it clear that he doesn’t like Trudeau. The incumbent government has attacked Trump, without stopping to think that he might win again. The personal animosity will be gone, but the principle for the tariffs remains the same. However, Pierre Poilievre is better placed to articulate the case against tariffs. For example, the US is heavily reliant on Canada for energy, so a 25% tariff on all Canadian exports will slap 25% on energy for American consumers. Trump won’t want higher energy costs for Americans, which is what brought down Joe Biden.

How does Pierre Poilievre intend to deal with immigration?

The Liberals have realized that immigration is a loser for them, and, over the last eight months, made a series of announcements about clamping down on immigration. In the next 18 to 24 months, 4.9 million out of Canada’s 41 million population will have their visas expire. The federal government expect most of those people to voluntarily leave.

There are two problems with that. There is no capacity to deport people if they don’t leave. Also, they often file an asylum claim once their visa expires, but the system is so backlogged, it can take two years before they get a hearing, and they can’t be deported while they have an active claim. Poilievre needs to ensure the Canadian Border Service has the resources it needs to enforce where necessary, and he needs to clear the asylum backlog. It will be a difficult issue to navigate; immigrants are upset at the change in this decade-long status quo.

Canada under Justin Trudeau has adopted a distinctly Israel-skeptic stance, even restricting arms exports. How will things be different under Poilievre?

Poilievre has consistently expressed strong support for Israel. He’s condemned Hamas as a “sadistic, genocidal, terrorist death cult” and emphasized Israel’s right to defend itself. Poilievre has also indicated that, under his leadership, Canada would stand firmly with Israel and move Canada’s embassy to Jerusalem. He’s also said that if Israel were to destroy Iran’s nuclear capacity, it would be “a gift to mankind from the Jewish state,” which underscores his alignment with Israel’s security concerns.

Canada’s seen a sharp rise in anti-Semitic attacks since October 7. What has Poilievre committed to do about it?

Poilievre has been vocal in his condemnation. He’s criticized Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for what he perceives as a weak response to anti-Semitism and has called for stronger actions to combat it. Additionally, Poilievre has advocated for the designation of groups like Samidoun, which he alleges have ties to terrorist organizations, as terrorist entities in Canada, and stronger immigration controls.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1042)

The post Is It Curtains for Justin Trudeau? first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

Michael Doran, senior fellow and director of the Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East at the Hudson Institute and a veteran of the George W. Bush administration, has long warned of the Iran threat and emphasized the importance of Israel to US interests. Dr. Doran has a direct line to many of Donald Trump’s advisors and is hopeful for a more robust US foreign policy, but he sees the incoming administration consciously tempering hawks with voices from the MAGA camp’s isolationist wing.

A Catholic raised in the Midwest and California, Dr. Doran lived in Israel as a young man and picked up fluent Hebrew and a deep attachment to the country. In 2005, he left his Princeton University post to serve on the Bush National Security Council and later as a State Department advisor and as deputy assistant secretary of defense.

He was among the few Bush advisors to embrace Mr. Trump’s first-term approach, urging fellow members of the “expert class” to see past the nontraditional veneer and judge the strategy by its effectiveness.

Dr. Doran shared his views with Mishpacha on what the debate in the new administration could mean for Israel, Iran, and a fraught Middle East.

There has been much talk about the influence of figures like Tucker Carlson and Tulsi Gabbard on Trump’s foreign policy appointments. What are you hearing about the administration’s direction on Middle East policy?

I’m really struck by how supportive of Israel — and how tough on Iran — President Trump’s national security team is turning out to be. The choices he has announced — for national security advisor, secretary of defense, ambassador to Israel, ambassador to the United Nations, director of the CIA, and secretary of state — are making Jerusalem joyous and Tehran nervous.

Having said all that, we can’t forget that within the Trump-aligned Republican Party, there are two distinct strains on foreign policy. One includes figures like Senator Marco Rubio and Congressman Mike Waltz, who hold traditional national security attitudes toward Iran and the Middle East.

The other strain includes the “restraintists,” figures like Tucker Carlson, Tulsi Gabbard, and Elbridge Colby. They are skeptical of military commitments to the Middle East and often suggest that a strategic accommodation can be found with Iran. They are also skeptical of Israel, as the agent that might force the US into a confrontation with Iran. Some of J.D. Vance’s ideas overlap with them as well, although Vance is very supportive of Israel.

We need not be overly worried about this situation. The two strains always existed in the Trump coalition. And what President Trump is going to do is the same thing he did in his first administration — very effectively — which was to straddle them.

One thing I think everyone can see now is that Trump is a very good politician, and his ability to straddle has been an essential part of how he’s kept his coalition together and expanded it.

In his first term, this straddling sometimes looked messy. There was an episode when the Iranians downed a US drone and Trump was very public about the fact that hawks like John Bolton were advising him to hit Iran and that others were telling him not to. In the end, they prepared a strike plan, but Trump called it off at the last minute and said too many people would have died. To traditional foreign policy types, that looked haphazard, idiosyncratic, and sloppy. But the next time such a question came up, Trump had Qassem Soleimani killed. Part of the strategy of Trump’s straddle is, you never know what you’re getting.

That unpredictability is a principal Trump wants to keep. He wants to show that he is the decider and keep foreign leaders guessing about how he’ll react.

For most administrations, tugging in different directions would be seen as a liability. Trump found a way to exploit it — both in terms of domestic politics, in how he appeals to constituencies with different points of view simultaneously, and in terms of foreign adversaries, whom he keeps off guard.

Do you think figures like J.D. Vance see Israel as a way to threaten foreign enemies without risking US troops, thereby playing a direct role in their America First vision?

I hope that is true. I do expect this team to understand the value of Israel as a guardian of the American interest in the Middle East. We will have to wait to see how they turn that belief into concrete policy.

I think the key factor is that J.D. Vance understands the important of the evangelical Christian vote and the votes of a majority of other Americans, no matter what religion they are, who have a gut level identification with Israel. Trump also understands the importance of the evangelicals, and for that reason, he has appointed Mike Huckabee as his new ambassador.

The situation in the Middle East right now could not be better for the arrival of the Trump team, with its anti-Iran inclinations. The decapitation of Hezbollah and the attacks Israel carried out against Iran open a whole new set of possibilities for US-Israeli military cooperation. Israel’s achievements in the war showcase the utility of Israel to the security of the United States.

It’s hard to say with any certainty just how deeply that’s seeped into the Trump team’s strategic thinking yet. If it hasn’t, it soon will. I’m certain of that.

Past administrations came into office with plans for taking a direct role in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Does the Trump team have a vision, or are its goals more modest?

Trump learned in his first term that the Palestinians should not be given a veto over normalization between Arab states and Israel. It remains a Democratic dogma that the road to normalization runs through the Palestinian issue. In a Trump administration, that idea will once again go by the wayside.

The Trump team does have a set of ideas that they’ve inherited from Jared Kushner’s “Peace to Prosperity” plan, but the chances of those being accepted by the Palestinians are small, especially in the current circumstances. Trump may try to revive the plan, but I will be surprised if much comes of that effort, due to the intransigence of the Palestinians.

The Middle East priority for Trump is going to be Iran. Trump learned in his first term that, contrary to what the Democrats believe, Iran cannot be a solution to our problems in the Middle East. That was Obama’s outlook, and one that Biden tried to resurrect. Now, ultimately, that’s also where Tucker Carlson and Elbridge Colby end up, whether they say so explicitly or not.

But Trump already rejected the idea of Iran as a solution when he was in office the first time. He rejected it explicitly while on the campaign trail. And his picks for top national security positions reject it. After at least two Iranian assassination attempts against him, and hearing some of his top advisors — including Brian Hook, who is leading his State Department transition team — I think Trump is more likely than ever to see Iran as a big problem, regardless of what some influential people in his circle are telling him. And he will see Israel as a big part of the solution to the problem.

Bottom line: Trump will approach Israel more with an eye to solving the US-Iran challenge than to solving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Trump said that Israel should wrap up its current operations quickly. How does that translate into policy regarding the conflicts with Hamas and Hezbollah?

Those were campaign statements. They may reflect Trump’s belief in peace through strength, but they also reflect his political skill. He effectively sent the message that on the one hand, I want Israel to win, and on the other hand, I want this fighting to stop sooner than later, so the suffering of Palestinians will stop. At the same time, that statement also says, “I don’t have any intention of sending American troops into this fight.” From a domestic political point of view, promising to keep America out of wars is the most important commitment.

How much latitude do you think the Trump White House will give Israel regarding direct strikes against Iran, especially its nuclear program?

That remains the $64,000 question, and I don’t have a clear answer to it. I think the way to frame the issue is to ask, “What role will Israeli hard power play in the delivery of a credible American threat against Iran?”

When I look at Trump’s choices for major national security positions, my impression is that they’re going to be more favorably inclined toward seeing Israel as an instrument for delivering that threat to Iran. But still, there’s a big difference between using the Israeli military as a threat and greenlighting a serious plan to carry out military operations to degrade or destroy Iran’s nuclear program. I don’t know where precisely they will come down on that question.

Do you think the administration will act to stop Iranian oil sales to China, and if so, how?

Brian Hook’s statements that the Trump administration is not going to carry out regime change, but will isolate Iran and weaken it, tells me that they are going to go hard after oil sales to China. There are different ways to do that. One is tracking down the front companies and transfers on the high seas, which are difficult processes.

There are two straighter paths, but they come with their own complications. One is to come to an agreement with China, or with its banks and insurance companies, that they’ll stop buying Iran’s oil. The other is to turn off the oil at the source by having Israel strike Iran’s energy infrastructure.

Getting China on board might not be as far-fetched as it sounds. The Chinese did not fight Trump on this issue in his first term. It might come down to how high Trump prioritizes it in his dealings with China. If it’s a priority, it could happen.

Part of the answer might run through Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” energy policy. If we’re flooding international markets with American oil, and China can continue to buy relatively cheap oil on the open market, Iran has less to offer. Perhaps the Saudis can be persuaded to give us a hand. We will see.

Do you see the Trump administration removing US troops from danger spots in Iraq and Syria?

They have a strong inclination to pull the troops out of northeast Syria, which is something Trump’s base expects to see happen. That increases the importance of calculations with Turkey, since working with them is the most obvious way of filling the vacuum in Syria and preventing it from being filled by Iran or another ISIS. That’s why I would expect Trump to consider redeploying those troops to southern Turkey, where, together with the Turks, they can continue to patrol the region.

How will the US strengthening diplomatic ties with Turkey affect Israel policy?

It could have a very large effect, but in an indirect way that takes a couple of steps.

Trump prioritized reaching a negotiated peace between Russia and Ukraine. That will likely be in close coordination with the Turks, who have the second-largest army in NATO and are strong Ukraine supporters. Trump will need to offer Ukraine some kind of security guarantee, and since it won’t be done through NATO, the most logical place to turn is Turkey.

If talks start, it will become clear very quickly that Putin doesn’t have a lot to offer by way of concessions. But Trump will need to show that a deal is not just Ukrainian capitulation. So where does Russia agree to concessions? It could be in Syria, where Russia currently works with Iran to prop up the Assad regime.

The Israelis will also promote linkage between Ukraine and Syria. Israel would like to see Syria made inhospitable to Iran. It will promote the notion that, if Russia wants to benefit territorially from the war in Ukraine, it should make concessions in Syria, by standing aside as Israel hits Iran there. That’s a complicated set of factors, and I’m not suggesting this deal is out there waiting to happen. But it shows how interlinked everything is with everything else.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1037)

The post Middle East Comeback  first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

Photos: Flash90

Retired Brigadier General Amir Avivi, chairman and founder of the Israel Defense and Security Forum (IDSF, widely known in Israel as “the Bit’chonistim”) has long been familiar with the Gaza Strip. Before becoming the righthand man of IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon, Avivi served as commander of a regional brigade in the Southern Command, and later as deputy commander of the Gaza Division. He had warned against carrying out the 2005 Gaza Disengagement.

After his 2017 retirement from active service, in 2020 he founded the IDSF, an organization of mainly high-ranking former IDF officers that is known for its hawkish orientation. He paid a visit to the Gaza Envelope just before last Simchas Torah and came away with a feeling of unease, which he shared with his former colleagues in the defense establishment. Now, as he observes the progress of the war, the lack of evident Hamas capitulation again has him feeling that something isn’t right in.

Avivi sat with Mishpacha to discuss the dispute over the Philadelphi Corridor, share his views on when the war will end, and what the day after in Gaza should look like.

You warned about the buildup of Hamas forces. Did October 7 take you by surprise?

On Chol Hamoed Succos, I visited the Gaza Envelope region with my family. The skies were clear, the weather was pleasant, and the timing seemed perfect. We were walking in the area of Kibbutz Mefalsim, and a close friend who’s a member of the Bit’chonistim and a senior reserve officer in the Gaza Division invited us to join his family for a barbecue at their place on Kibbutz Sa’ad.

When we arrived, I found another colleague there who’s also a senior officer in the Southern Command. As we were eating, I asked him, “Nu, what’s with all the demonstrations on the fence? What kind of trouble is brewing with that?”

He didn’t seem very bothered by the question and remarked casually between bites, “Leave it, Avivi, they’ll stop with it. Nothing’s happening there. They’re deterred.”

Seventy-two hours after that meal, the gates of Gehinnom opened.

Yes, and the central thing that brought October 7 upon us is the fact that our leadership made a serious error in how they conceived of security for the State of Israel. More than any intelligence or diplomatic failure, what brought upon us the inferno of October 7 was the mistaken defense assessment — or conceptzia  — of the senior officials in the security echelons.

Your group, the IDSF, drafted a security assessment in 2022 that was presented to the political echelon, including Binyamin Netanyahu, who was then the opposition leader, and the heads of security agencies. Was that an attempt to break this mistaken security concept?

We sat in my garden one night, and after each of us gave his overview of the situation, we realized that we all shared the same overriding concern and we needed to raise a hue and cry about it.

The document we produced was also presented in the Knesset, and ten senior reserve officers came to each such meeting — and today these people are members of our movement. We explained that the next war will be either the Six Day War or the Yom Kippur War.

We said there are only two options on the table. Either we attack first and gain the upper hand, or we wait and “contain” them until we’re taken by surprise.

Did anyone listen to you?

They listened politely, asked a few perfunctory questions. But of course they didn’t act on our suggestions.

You have to understand, these systems were completely invested in this flawed defense doctrine, and they refused to see the reality.

What did you see that they did not? You don’t have Military Intelligence or the Unit 8200 signals division.

They have the intelligence resources, but they did not have the ability to step back from the concept of containment. They really and truly believed that they could tolerate the rocket attacks and demonstrations at the fence, containing the violence instead of rooting it out, and that would keep the peace.

When you cling to a certain concept, if you are confronted with contradictory facts, you will filter them to fit the concept.

You met with everyone you could, but the attack was not prevented. Do you worry that you could have done more?

There’s always a feeling that we could have shouted more to alert the country to the danger at hand. But I’m not sure that was really possible. They were so sure that Hamas was deterred. No one around the chief of staff said otherwise. There was complete unanimity. What they interpreted as deterrence, we perceived as the quiet before the storm.

How do you differentiate between dangerous quiet and deterrence?

First of all, the enemies in Gaza challenged us every year or two. The Air Force and intelligence agencies were not able to prevent terror organizations from shutting down life in the Gaza Envelope. In 2021, when Hamas fired at Jerusalem during Operation Guardian of the Walls, Israeli intelligence only learned of it a short time before it happened. That failure should have shown us that our intelligence was missing crucial information about what was happening on the other side, about what the enemy was planning.

As to what happened on October 7, it followed from plain logic. No terror organization invests in building an underground city and amassing tens of thousands of rockets and training hordes of terrorists if it’s not planning to do anything.

Combined with the insanity on the Israeli street, the chaos of the election campaigns, the calls for refusal to serve, and the terrible divisiveness, our enemies saw it was an opportune moment. None of this should have been a surprise, we knew all these things the whole time but just refused to see them. Our enemies were able to take advantage of it.

In recent weeks, the issue of the Philadelphi Corridor has been in the headlines constantly. As someone familiar with the region, can you tell us if the importance of keeping control of this route outweighs the cost of leaving hostages in captivity?

The Philadelphi Corridor is one of the most significant sites in Gaza, and the first reason that we must not leave is to prevent Hamas from rearming. It’s not only a conduit for weapons to flow through, it’s also a potential transit point for, chalilah, thousands of Nukhba terrorists. The significance is clear: If we withdraw, everything we’ve done until now was for naught, because Hamas will become strong again very fast.

Besides that, even if Hamas doesn’t smuggle hostages to Iran, Israel has to hold on to the Netzarim Corridor that bisects the Gaza Strip and the Philadelphi Corridor simply because of their importance to Hamas. By exerting pressure there, we can move the deals forward that will ultimately bring all the hostages home.

There are those who claim that we can leave the corridor for a month, and then return to it immediately if it becomes necessary.

I don’t agree with the claim that we will be able to return to it immediately. Who says there won’t be international pressure to keep us from doing that?

Earlier in this war, when the State of Israel entered Rafah, the whole world was slamming us. We’ve already seen the diplomatic tsunami at its strongest. I’m not sure we’ll be able to overcome it if we want to go back to Philadelphi after a month. It’s not something we can take for granted.

When you look at the way the war has been waged until now, what are the mistakes that have brought us to where we are?

Two main things should have been done differently. First, we should have applied continuous military pressure. There actually was considerable pressure at the beginning of the war, and that led to the first deal. But as the days went by, it slackened. When the IDF eased its foot off the gas pedal, Hamas was less willing to release hostages. If we had been stronger and more determined over the course of this war, our situation today would be much better.

Second, one of the most important tactics in war is laying siege to the enemy. True, we can’t withhold humanitarian aid from civilians. But we have to do everything possible to prevent Hamas terrorists from getting their hands on this aid. It’s a question of logistics, but the distribution of aid could have been handled differently.

The problem is that the defense establishment has a policy to refrain from using this tactic. They are trying to win without using one of the most powerful tools of war. It’s impossible to topple Hamas as a ruling entity if the State of Israel won’t step into this vacuum. Until that policy changes, we can’t create the conditions to bring the hostages home.

If that’s the case, how much longer will this war last?

This war won’t be won in a day, but rather over a longer-term process. There’s the first stage, which is the capture, and then there’s the second stage, which is longer and more complex, and that is the cleansing of Gaza. The second stage can last years, and in this sense, it is very possible we’re only at the beginning.

In Operation Defensive Shield in the West Bank in 2002, it took a month to take control of the cities, and then five years to stabilize the situation. The fighting in Gaza could continue for years, unless we apply such strong pressure that it leads to Hamas’s surrender, and the picture of thousands of terrorists giving up their weapons. Given the way the IDF is currently fighting in the Strip, it’s hard to see this happening.

What’s the best way to guarantee the permanent removal of the threat from Gaza?

The disengagement, as we’ve already learned, was not relevant as a solution. Military control is probably a good option, but at some point, that will need to end. It always does. And what will happen the day after that? We won’t be able to leave our soldiers there for decades with no clear purpose. The fear is that one day Gaza will revert to its former state.

Another option is the combination of settlement and military rule, like in Yehudah and Shomron, and that is probably the best way to preserve security. Right now, the discussion about settlement seems irrelevant, but in principle, wherever there is settlement, there is security.

I’m not only talking about an ethical or a spiritual imperative, but also from a military and security standpoint. If there is no settlement, the IDF could quickly lose legitimacy for its presence there, which is what happened in Southern Lebanon. When there is settlement, that forces the IDF to protect it, and there is legitimacy for an IDF presence in the area.

In order to really control large swaths of territory, the IDF needs civilian settlement. Someone who served in the IDF during the time we were in Lebanon remembers what it was like to drive from one outpost to another — the constant fear of ambushes and explosive devices. In Yehudah and Shomron, even in the most dangerous times, the travel through the main intersections and between army bases was done each day by thousands of Israelis. This also makes it possible for the IDF to move relatively freely with a small force presence and deal in a pinpointed way with terror threats.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1030)

The post A Few Minutes with… Brig. Gen. Amir Avivi      first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

Photo: AP Images

Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) is completing his first term, after serving two terms as Florida’s governor. He has emerged as one of Israel’s foremost defenders since October 7. Underscoring that, Senator Scott traveled to Israel last March to express solidarity with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, amid the latter’s tensions with President Joe Biden over calls for a cease-fire with Hamas.

Senator Scott has long been supportive of Florida’s large Jewish community, and showed that recently with his commitment to ensure the security of Jewish institutions in the state that faced threats after Hamas’ terrorist attack.

One of Donald Trump’s earliest supporters when few dared to back him, Senator Scott has remained steadfast with the current Republican Party leader. He even endorsed Trump’s 2024 pre-candidacy, against his own state’s governor, Ron DeSantis — a decision that has positioned Scott as one of the most staunchly pro-Trump voices in the Senate.

Having narrowly won his Senate seat in 2018, Senator Scott is now running for reelection against Democratic congresswoman Debbie Mucarsel-Powell. The latest polls show him with a four-point advantage.

In a conversation with Mishpacha, Senator Scott expressed confidence in his campaign (“Israel will continue to have a good friend in the Senate because we’re going to win”). He also reaffirmed his commitment to defending the Jewish People in the war against Hamas, predicted that Donald Trump would win because “American families will vote for him,” and asserted that “the Democratic Party has turned its back on the Jewish People.”

We understand that after some suspicious drones were spotted flying over Jewish institutions in Florida, you played a key role in facilitating contact between Jewish community leaders and the Federal Aviation Administration. After this alarming development, what steps can be taken to ensure the safety of Jewish institutions in Florida?

What has happened against Jewish institutions is inexplicable. When I was governor, I managed to pass legislation to ensure financial aid for school security. And as a senator, I have worked alongside Jewish state schools to make them safer. There are crazy people out here who are just anti-Jewish, anti-Semitic…

Now, first off, we can’t believe there are people like that. But we’ve got to make these schools safe. And I actually have gotten legislation passed that will guarantee law enforcement in every school, public and private. I achieved this with public schools when I was governor, but now I want to do it for all private schools, from the Senate.

There are several programs that we already fund to harden our schools, and we’ve got to do more of that. We have to make sure it’s going to our Jewish day schools so they can make these facilities safe, because they’re the ones receiving the threats. And they’re getting the threats because there are crazy people in this country who are anti-Jewish, so we’ve got to continue to fund it. It’s necessary to increase the funding, and we’ve got to get it out to schools quickly.

Let’s jump into the international arena. Republican support for Israel is sky-high, for sure, but among Democrats, it’s somewhat shakier. How can Israel rebuild bipartisan support?

I don’t get why people don’t support Israel. It’s our great ally! It’s the only democracy in the Middle East we have. In my state, I’ve got a significant Jewish population that’s very supportive of Israel.

Also, the other side’s terrible! The other side kills people just because of their religion. So how anybody could not support Israel, I don’t know. I don’t know why Democrats don’t support Israel.

But the American public, I think, is very supportive of Israel. Personally, I’m going to continue to do everything I can to help Israel. I will continue to fight this anti-Semitism. I’m going to help our Jewish state schools and our synagogues. But I don’t get why Democrats have turned their back on Israel and the Jewish People.

There are some voices close to President Trump who argue that the US shouldn’t be so involved in international conflicts, usually referring to Russia’s war with Ukraine, but it could also affect support for Israel. What’s your take on that?

First off, Trump is the most pro-Israel president, I think, in our history. He held Iran accountable. He stopped their flow of money. The Houthis, Hezbollah, and Hamas didn’t have the resources they have now. He moved the American embassy to Jerusalem. He got the Abraham Accords done. So he’s a big supporter.

Now, he doesn’t like conflict, so I think his goal is to stop it ahead of time. He killed Soleimani. He held Putin accountable. Putin never invaded Ukraine while Donald Trump was president…

So I think that when Trump was president, our allies respected us, and our enemies feared us. And that system has changed. So if he’s president, I think clearly, from his standpoint, he wants to end the Ukraine conflict. That doesn’t mean he’s going to turn his back on Ukraine. He’d like to make sure Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, won’t have the resources there to attack Israel, and he’ll defend Israel.

But is there something specific to the Israel conflict that isolationists find objectionable?

I think none of us like the conflict, but Israel didn’t start it. Hamas started it. And if you look at everything that was going on when Trump left office, whether it’s the Abraham Accords or Iran not having money, I think that’s what Trump will try to do again when he’s president. He’ll try to make sure Iran doesn’t have resources and nuclear weapons, and he will try to expand the Abraham Accords, which will create more prosperity, not just for Israel but for everyone in the Middle East.

Many voices in the Middle East are starting to call for Israel to make deals with Hamas, with Hezbollah. Some say that if President Trump gets back to the White House, he may call for Israel to make a deal. What do you think about an agreement with Hamas or Hezbollah?

I think what he’ll do is make sure Israel wins and Hamas loses. He’ll make sure Hamas doesn’t have the resources to do anything. I don’t know what type of deal they would make. Personally, I don’t think you can do a deal with Hamas until every Hamas member is dead. But if they have no resources, and Israel has the resources… I mean, the only way this is going to end is when Hamas is gone. I don’t know how you can do it any other way.

Let’s discuss the national election. When it appeared Joe Biden would be the Democratic presidential candidate, Donald Trump and the Republicans appeared to be assuming a sure victory. However, since Biden dropped out and Kamala Harris jumped in, there’s a certain anxiety that comes across in GOP circles. Is the Republican Party worried about an unexpected outcome in an election they thought was already won?

I think as people get to know Harris, they will understand how pivotal this election is. If you want open borders, high inflation, conflict around the world, a weak president, then Harris is your person. If you want someone our allies respect and our enemies fear, if you want the conflicts to go away, if you want the border to be secure, if you want someone who’s going to promote democracy, then you’re going to vote for Trump. And I think American families are going to vote for Trump, because it’s better for them.

What do you think about the polls that show Harris in the lead?

Every poll in my two gubernatorial races and in my 2018 Senate campaign said I was going to lose, and I won all those elections. This is what the polls show, because the left in the media wants everyone to believe that Harris is going to win, so Trump won’t get the resources to win the election, and she’ll get the resources. This is what polls are. But I talk to average people, and they’re not supporting Harris. Harris is not someone that anybody respects.

Which are the winning issues that Republicans should focus on in the election?

I think the issues are inflation, the border, crime, and the ongoing conflicts around the world. I’m campaigning; this is my election cycle, and when I’m out talking to people, that’s what they talk to me about.

Some say that the Harris-Walz ticket is starting to gain traction in Republican-governed states like Texas or your own state, Florida. Do you share this view?

No, I don’t agree. We have a million more registered Republicans than Democrats. There’s no way, in that regard.

Our last question concerns the anti-Semitic attacks on university campuses. What we saw this year was very tragic for our people. What do you think the federal government should do to protect Jewish students?

Protect them! We have law enforcement. And if you threaten Jewish students, you should go to jail.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1025)

The post A few minutes with… Senator Rick Scott first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

Photo: Flash90

Bit by bit over the last ten months, the conflict between Israel and Hamas has escalated into an international war. Rockets from Lebanon, drones from Yemen, ballistic missiles from Iran, and American naval forces have marked each new stage.

The recent assassinations of key terrorists — Ismail Haniyeh and Mohammad Deif of Hamas, Fuad Shukr of Hezbollah — have pushed tensions to their highest point since October 7. While Iran has assumed a greater direct role, the two original fronts, Gaza and the Lebanese border, still pose a clear and present danger. And now to the grief for the dead and the despair over the hostages must be added the suffering of the hundreds of thousands of displaced people who cannot return to their homes.

Yaakov Amidror, Senior Fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategic Studies and Distinguished Fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, is a career military man. He fought in the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War, attained the rank of major general, and served as the head of the research department of Israeli military intelligence, as well as national security advisor to Prime Minister Netanyahu and chairman of the National Security Council.

Major General (res.) Amidror spoke with Mishpacha and offered his evaluation of the performance of Israel’s security forces in the war, assessing that, “Hamas in Gaza is already militarily irrelevant.”

Ten months into the war, the focus has shifted from Gaza to Iran. Does that mean the offensive against Hamas has succeeded?

Let me offer an example that will help illustrate the situation. When Deif or Haniyeh were eliminated, no one in the world asked how Gaza responded to the attacks. Why is that? Because Hamas in Gaza, in terms of its military capabilities, is practically irrelevant. They killed Hamas’s number two, killed the person considered the leader of Hamas in Tehran, we were supposedly responsible, and what was the response from Gaza?

The fact is, in military terms, Hamas in Gaza has lost a significant portion of its capabilities. We dismantled and killed a large part of their general staff, they have no reinforcements to bring in from outside because we are occupying the border between Gaza and Egypt, and we have apparently destroyed most of the weapon factories in the Strip. Hamas is not currently refraining from attacking Israel now because they don’t want to; they could not attack Israel if they wanted to. Israel assassinated the number one Hamas figure globally and the number two in Gaza, and Hamas in Gaza cannot do anything — they are irrelevant.

This week, some media outlets, particularly CNN, suggested that Hamas has been rearming and adding new forces. Is this credible?

CNN is talking nonsense. Let’s say that initially they had a force of 1,000 men, and we killed 700, including generals, captains, and military leaders. Then they went out onto the streets and hurriedly recruited another 200 or 300 men. Does that mean that the group has the strength it had before? No. Because those who died were seasoned terrorists, veterans, and the ones they recruited know nothing, have no experience, no one trusts them for logistics, they have no fighting capabilities....

So one might mistakenly say, “The group only lost a small percentage and is now rearming,” but that’s not true. First of all, I don’t believe they’re rearming. And even if they manage to recruit large numbers, it’s not comparable to what they had before, because these are people with no combat experience, no training, no intelligence capabilities — they have nothing.

One of the major points of contention is control of the Philadelphi Corridor. Can you explain why it is so important?

The Philadelphi Corridor is the border line between the Gaza Strip and Egypt. It’s obvious that if the State of Israel dominates this corridor, then Hamas terrorists’ chances of escaping or even using underground tunnels drop to zero percent.

Additionally, the majority of the weapons we’re fighting against were not manufactured in Gaza; they were smuggled into Gaza from Egypt. So if we control this passage, they won’t be able to smuggle weapons or machinery into Gaza.

There has been speculation that control of the Philadelphi Corridor is one of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s nonnegotiable points for reaching a ceasefire agreement. How much room does Israel have to negotiate regarding its control?

To prevent infiltrations, it’s not necessary for the Israeli army to be permanently stationed at the Philadelphi Corridor with all our forces. For Hamas to be able to cross from one side to the other, they have to dig tunnels. So if, along the entire length of this corridor — which isn’t that long, only 14 kilometers [roughly nine miles] — there were sensors that could alert us when someone approaches the border, or when someone is digging, or when someone is moving, we could quickly send forces. And if someone tries to do something, we eliminate them. It’s only 14 kilometers, you can be at any point along that corridor in just half an hour.

In that case, there’s no need to be constantly stationed there. You can have a system and reach an agreement with the Egyptians and the Americans so that we don’t have to ask permission in every situation, ensuring that when our sensors detect something, we act accordingly. Then there’s no need to be permanently stationed there.

What should be the long-term plan in Gaza?

In the long term, we need to be in a position that allows us to act against any enemy that tries to emerge in Gaza. Much like what we do today in Jenin, to a greater or lesser extent. When there’s intelligence about a group of terrorists, we go in and eliminate them. That’s what’s needed in Gaza.

Let’s move to the other battlefront, the North. Do you think it’s possible to reach an agreement, or are we heading for war?

The Americans say they’re making an effort to reach a diplomatic agreement that would see Hezbollah retreat a bit further north. Theoretically, if they succeed, a war won’t be necessary. But the chances of reaching that agreement are slim.

In the end, there will be no choice but to go to war. The question is when and under what conditions. But eventually, the State of Israel will have to deal with Hezbollah. We can’t just leave them as they are.

These days, there is both anticipation and, to a certain extent, fear of an Iranian attack. Wouldn’t it be better to strike first before being attacked?

The Iranians think the exact opposite. They think we already struck first. They say, “Look at the Israelis — they won’t take responsibility, but they were definitely the ones who killed Haniyeh, a special guest of the government!”

Consider that Haniyeh was the guest of honor at the inauguration of the new president, Iran hosted him in an official residence of the Revolutionary Guards, and they killed him inside the room! They say, “The Israelis have gone mad!”

At some point, the world thinks, “What more do you want? You killed Haniyeh in Tehran!” The world says, “Isn’t it enough that you killed Haniyeh? Now you also want to attack Iran?!” It’s very likely that sooner or later Iran will attack.

Assuming Israel was behind the assassinations, do you think they were worth it?

I don’t know. We’ll see how they respond. Haniyeh’s death has no military value, though it does have significant symbolic value. He didn’t have military influence in Hamas, but what Israel is saying through this is, “Dear ones, Hamas will pay the price anywhere in the world, not just in Gaza. What they did to us on October 7 is unacceptable.”

After Haniyeh’s assassination, Sinwar was appointed as the new political head of Hamas. What ramifications will this have?

It has no importance. It means nothing.

We’ve talked about the conflicts in the South and the North. How would you assess the performance and strategy applied by the IDF in the war so far?

There’s always room for improvement. You can always point out where something wasn’t done right or could have been done differently. The best military plan is always the one that wasn’t chosen.

But generally speaking, if I look at the results in Gaza, Israel has almost dismantled Hamas, with a very low number of casualties, compared to what was predicted before the war started. Before the war, they said there would be twice or four times as many deaths as we’ve had. So that’s a very positive outcome.

I think it was done a bit slowly. It could have been done a little faster, although that’s not always possible, because there are the Americans, there are the hostages… there are many elements at play. But ultimately, the achievements in Gaza are very good — taking more time than I initially thought, but with fewer casualties than I imagined.

And in the North, the IDF is conducting a very good defensive war. To date, we’ve killed around 400 Hezbollah members, and another 100 from other terrorist organizations, and our casualty number isn’t even ten percent. Unfortunately, we had to suffer the tragic attack that killed 12 children, but beyond that, our casualty numbers are very low. Moreover, I think the attacks against Hezbollah have been precise in a way that will facilitate a potential war against them in the future.

Our last question is about an internal issue that has tarnished the reputation of the IDF. Some soldiers have been accused of abusing their authority at the Sdeh Teiman detention center, and there’s a discussion about whether we should protect soldiers more, even when there are certain excesses. Some even say that these proceedings against soldiers weaken the morale of the forces. What’s your opinion on this?

The army cannot behave like a guerrilla group or a mafia. There are laws, there are generals, there are rules. Those who break the rules must be investigated, and if it’s found that they broke the rules, they must be punished. If we don’t maintain order and firm rules in the army, everything will collapse. The secret of the army is order.

What punishment should be given? That needs to be evaluated. But anyone who doesn’t follow the rules or does things that are prohibited must be punished. And it doesn’t matter why they did it. Whether it should have been done one way or another, I won’t get into that, because I don’t know the details. But it’s clear that the army cannot operate like a gang. Anyone who breaks the rules must be punished.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1024)

The post Border Line Crisis first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is one of America’s leading conservative voices, and one of the Republican Party’s highest ranking national elected officials. First elected to the Senate in 2012, he is running for his third term this year against Democratic congressman Colin Allred. Recent polls show Cruz up by 3 points, in a close race.

He first came to national attention in 2016 when he ran for the Republican presidential nomination; he stayed in the race the longest against Donald Trump, and campaigned for him vigorously when Trump became the nominee. Cruz is now one of the sharpest blades Trump wields in the Senate and one of the staunchest advocates for his re-election.

An expert debater who thinks well on his feet and has mastered a vast amount of policy minutiae, Cruz has risen to the upper echelons of the Republican Senate hierarchy. He is the ranking Republican on the Commerce Committee and holds seats on such key committees as Judiciary and Foreign Relations. Senator Cruz most recently made headlines with his participation in the Senate hearings with Secret Service chiefs following the assassination attempt on Donald Trump.

Cruz is not afraid to speak his mind, and in a conversation with Mishpacha that covered a wide range of topics, he was unsparing in his criticism of the Biden administration’s handling of the Gaza situation, Vice President Kamala Harris’s candidacy, the border crisis, and Secret Service miscues in the assassination attempt on Trump. But he also reiterated his promise to be “the leading defender of Israel in the Senate.”

You have called the White House to account several times, charging that they have impeded Israel’s progress in defeating Hamas in Gaza. Could you elaborate on that?

Well, sadly, the Biden-Harris administration has proven to be the most anti-Israel administration we have seen in modern times in the United States. From the very opening days, the White House has systematically undermined Israel. And in the wake of October 7, we have seen the Biden-Harris administration, at every stage, pressing Israel not to respond, not to defend itself, not to continue killing terrorists.

At the same time, the Biden administration continues to flow money to the enemies of America and the enemies of Israel — most troublingly, the nation of Iran. In the last four years, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, have flowed over $100 billion to Iran. And Iran is, of course, the leading funder of Hamas — over 90% of Hamas funds come from Iran. And it’s the lead funder of Hezbollah — over 90% of Hezbollah’s resources come from Iran. And so, flooding Iran with cash has strengthened and emboldened the enemies of Israel and has put Israel in greater danger and America in greater danger.

The Biden administration has sent large consignments of weaponry to Israel since the war began, for which Israelis are grateful — but it has also withheld weapons, to prevent Israel from attacking Rafah. What would a Republican administration do?

I believe the United States should stand unequivocally with Israel. In the wake of October 7, Israel is committed to utterly destroying Hamas. The United States should support that for as long as it takes. Destroying Hamas is unquestionably good for Israel, and it is unquestionably good for America.

If Donald Trump were still president, I do not believe October 7 would have happened. A major reason that the October 7 attack happened is that when America is weak, when the commander in chief in America is perceived as weak, it emboldens our enemies. I do not believe the war in Ukraine would have happened if Donald Trump were still president.

But Putin took measure of Joe Biden as commander in chief and determined that he was weak and ineffective, and I believe Hamas and Hezbollah and the Ayatollah and Iran have all done the same thing. And that is why they have engaged in relentless hostility.

Qatar supports Hamas, but also hosts a vast US air base. Shouldn’t the US use its leverage over the Qataris to make them stop funding terror?

I’ve introduced legislation to sanction any nation that supports or gives safe harbor to Hamas or Hezbollah. And unless Qatar dramatically changes their conduct, they would fall directly under the sanctions of the legislation I’ve introduced. Right now Qatar bears enormous responsibility for sheltering and encouraging Hamas, and they should bear the consequences for doing so.

Turkey’s Erdogan made a breathtaking threat recently when he said if Israel goes into Lebanon, he’ll send troops. Is it time to boot Turkey from NATO?

Turkey is a challenging situation. I have described the world as divided, from the United States perspective, into multiple categories. We have friends, we have enemies, we have competitors. And then the fourth category is what I call “problematic allies.” And the chief countries that fall into that category, from my perspective, are Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.

All three are US allies. With all three, we would like to remain allies. There are important strategic reasons to continue a positive relationship with those nations. That being said, all three engage in conduct that is at times deeply concerning. And so I don’t believe Erdogan will follow through on that threat. But dealing with Turkey is challenging, to put it mildly.

There is an isolationist strain in the Republican Party that forms a key component of President Trump’s support. These people want the United States to stay out of the war in Ukraine, and they also want to dial back support for Israel. How much weight do those voices carry? Would a new Trump administration fully back Israel?

We should expect President Trump to stand unequivocally with Israel, which is exactly what he did the last time he was president. There are a handful of isolationist voices in the United States, but I believe it is a very small number. That handful at times can be noisy. But I do not believe it reflects where the American people are.

I’ve been in the Senate 12 years. When I was first elected, I resolved then to be the leading defender of Israel in the Senate. And I’ve worked every day since then to fulfill that promise. I believe that’s where the people of Texas overwhelmingly are. And I believe that’s where the people of America overwhelmingly are.

You grilled acting Secret Service director Ronald Rowe regarding the attempt on President Trump’s life. It’s clear that there were mistakes. Do you believe there was negligence because it involved the Republican candidate?

There was unquestionably negligence. It was the most significant and catastrophic security failure since the 1981 attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan. As to why that failure occurred, we still have to get to the bottom of it.

But as I said at the hearing of the Judiciary Committee, I believe political and partisan concerns played a significant factor in the Secret Service refusing to provide a sufficient number of agents to adequately protect President Trump, and refusing to provide a sufficient number of assets, including aerial assets, to secure the rally scene. And I believe those same factors are what produced the Secret Service refusal to provide protection for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. until right after the attempted assassination of President Trump.

The Biden administration, sadly, has politicized the entirety of the federal government in a way that is profoundly harmful. The mission of the Secret Service is incredibly important, and it should not be corrupted by partisan politics.

The border crisis is a national issue, but for you as a senator from Texas, it is a special concern. You have claimed that this problem is Kamala Harris’s responsibility, and that she even wants the numbers to rise so they can become future Democratic voters. Can you explain how they have allowed the entry of illegals into the country to skyrocket?

Sure. So at the beginning of the administration, Joe Biden named Kamala Harris “the border czar,” he put her in charge of securing our border. In that regard, she has been an utter and complete failure.

When Joe Biden and Kamala Harris came into office, they inherited the lowest rate of illegal immigration in 45 years. I had worked hand in hand with President Trump, and we had achieved incredible success securing our southern border. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris deliberately and systematically broke the border.

Three decisions they made in their very first week in office caused this crisis. Their first week in office, number one, they immediately halted construction of the border wall. Number two, they reinstated the failed policy of catch-and-release. And number three, they pulled out of the incredibly successful remain-in-Mexico agreement. Those three decisions caused this crisis, and we went from the lowest rate of illegal immigration in 45 years to what we have today, the worst rate of illegal immigration in the history of our nation.

Eleven and a half million illegal immigrants have come into this country. That is deliberate, that is the outcome that Joe Biden wants. That is the outcome that Kamala Harris wants. And every single day, we’re seeing another American murdered, another woman or another child assaulted by illegal immigrants that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have released into this country. They’re releasing murderers into this country. They’re releasing some the worst criminals there are into this country.

Just this week, I will be sitting down with the mother of Jocelyn Nungaray, a 12-year-old girl in my hometown of Houston, Texas, a beautiful young girl, who just over a month ago was kidnapped and murdered by two illegal immigrants from Venezuela, who Joe Biden and Kamala Harris released. This has to stop.

And not only do we have the crimes that are occurring day after day after day, we have every day a growing risk of terrorism. Iran has called for a global jihad against the United States, Hezbollah has called for a global jihad against the United States, Hamas has called for a global jihad against the United States. And Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have effectively rolled out the red carpet and extended an invitation for terrorists to come into this country. It makes no sense whatsoever. And I believe today we are at a greater risk of a major terrorist attack than we have been at any point since September 11.

Polls have shown Harris has a better chance to win the election than Biden. Do you consider it a mistake by the Republican Party to have insisted that Biden withdraw his candidacy?

Well, to be clear, it was not Republicans who insisted Biden withdraw. It was Democrats who chased him out. That was something I predicted would happen ten months ago, on my podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz. We actually have a lot of listeners for the Verdict podcast in Israel. And ten months ago, I predicted the Democrats would force Joe Biden off the ballot.

The reason they forced him off the ballot is that they concluded he was going to lose and Donald Trump was going to beat him. And so right now, you are seeing some excitement among Democrats with Kamala coming in. And I think what we see right now is essentially a sugar high. I think Trump is going to win in November, I believe the Democrats are going to lose.

And Kamala’s biggest problem is that she is defending the same failed record that Joe Biden was defending. She is defending out-of-control spending and debt that has produced rising inflation that is hammering American families. She was the border czar in charge of the chaos at our southern border and the invasion we are experiencing right now. She and Joe Biden together are responsible for the disaster of foreign policy that has resulted in two simultaneous wars and our friends and allies being undermined. And I would point out that it was Kamala Harris who boycotted the speech from Prime Minister Netanyahu, refused to even sit on the floor of the House and listen to what the democratically elected leader of Israel said.

As hostile as Joe Biden has been to Israel, I believe Kamala Harris would be even more antagonistic. She is captured by the fringe left of the Democratic Party that frankly sides more with the anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, anti-American protesters that are spray-painting on monuments outside the Capitol, “Hamas is coming.” That, sadly, is the fringe part of the Democrat Party that Kamala Harris comes from, and she is beholden to that.

This year, we witnessed horrifying images of students being chased and attacked on university campuses across the country, simply for being Jewish. What can the federal government do to corral anti-Semitism on campus?

The wake of October 7 has revealed vicious anti-Semitism on many campuses across the America. I believe that anyone who threatens the safety of Jewish students — or, for that matter, any other students — should be arrested. They should be prosecuted. They should be expelled, and if they are a foreign students, they should be deported.

We need a federal government that will stand up and defend the rights of Jewish students against this vicious hatred and persecution and threats of violence that we are seeing right now. The Biden Department of Justice and FBI have been completely AWOL.

If Trump is reelected, I believe we will see the federal government stand up and defend Jewish students on campus. I believe we will see the federal government cut off the money from schools that refuse to protect their Jewish students. And I also believe the Department of Justice and the FBI will follow the money.

We know that Iran, we know that Qatar, and we know that other forces are funding the anti-Israel, anti-Semitic protesters. And the investigation should follow the money, and anyone in violation of anti-terrorism laws should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1023)

The post A Few Minutes with… Senator Ted Cruz   first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

The war that started with the horrific Hamas attacks last October 7 has once again positioned Israel as an ideological pivot for the world. The international right, historically associated with fascism, now supports the Jewish state for a complex variety of reasons. In contrast, the left, which claims to champion feminism and minority rights, backs an extremist terrorist group notorious for oppressing women and eradicating diversity.

Likewise, the war in Gaza has had varying effects on Israel’s international relations. While its enemies have remained the same, steadfast allies seem to be falling by the wayside, and formerly neutral countries have been braying for a cease-fire. Perhaps in no region is the change as stark as in Latin America: Israel faces opposition from Brazil under Lula da Silva, Mexico under Claudia Sheinbaum, Chile under Gabriel Boric, and Colombia under Gustavo Petro, the last of which severed ties with Netanyahu’s government in support of Hamas.

Surprisingly, this is not the case for Paraguay. The small South American nation of 6.2 million, whose vote was crucial for UN approval of Israel’s creation over 76 years ago, remains one of its staunchest supporters. The crowning moment in the relationship will come when the administration of President Santiago Peña moves Paraguay’s embassy to Jerusalem.

Peña, an economist educated at Columbia University and former director of Paraguay’s Central Bank, became the youngest president in the country’s history at 44 in 2023. He aligns Paraguay with other South American supporters of Israel — notably Argentina under President Javier Milei, with whom Peña has an excellent relationship, and Uruguay under Luis Lacalle Pou.

Just a few weeks ago, the three leaders gathered in Argentina for an event commemorating the 30th anniversary of the bombing of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, AMIA — the deadliest anti-Semitic attack in South American history. The image of the three presidents underscored the solidarity of Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay with the Jewish People.

At that event, President Santiago Peña declared in a speech that electrified social media that he would be moving Paraguay’s embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. “These are not times for the faint of heart; we must take a stand. And with this gesture, Paraguay demonstrates it is on the right side of the great Jewish People’s history. We are deeply concerned about the rise of anti-Semitism in all its forms worldwide. This manifests not only in acts of violence against the Jewish People but also in the distortion of facts that aim to deny Israel’s legitimate right to take measures to preserve its existence in the face of constant and persistent threats. Hence, the great Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges taught us that in the face of every act of anti-Semitism, we must all say, ‘I am Jewish.’ So, in the face of each act of anti-Semitism, allow me to say, ‘I am Jewish.’ ”

Understanding Peña’s strong stand requires insight into two internal factors at play in Paraguay. First, the country’s partisan politics: Peña leads the Colorado Party that has governed for 70 of the last 75 years, continuing the legacy of former president Horacio Cartes, who originally announced the embassy move in 2018. Cartes’s successor, Mario Abdo Martínez, reversed that decision, causing Israel to close its own embassy in Paraguay. Now, under Peña’s leadership, relations have warmed once again.

Second, Paraguay’s deeply religious population, predominantly Catholic, is very respectful of its small Jewish community of around 1,000 and largely supports the embassy move. By contrast, Javier Milei’s desire to move Argentina’s embassy to Jerusalem has met with domestic political opposition.

President Peña aims to boost Paraguay’s economic potential and attract foreign investment by aligning the country with conservative Western nations, and his support for Israel amid conflict is a prime example.

In an exclusive interview with Mishpacha, President Peña discussed Paraguay’s future embassy move and his views on Middle Eastern affairs. He emphasized that Paraguay should not just be a friend to Israel but its “best friend in the region.”

Your announcement that Paraguay will finally move its embassy to Jerusalem took many by surprise. Can you provide some context for this decision?

This is not a sudden decision. To understand it, one must grasp a bit of Paraguayan history. Although it seems surprising, the reality is that there is a strong bond between Paraguay, Israel, and the Jewish People. This connection goes back centuries — in 1864, Paraguay experienced an invasion and genocide during the War of the Triple Alliance. In this war, Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay secretly conspired to eliminate Paraguay and its people. The war lasted six years and had a devastating impact —two-thirds of the overall population and 90 percent of the male population perished.

This led to a slow recovery process, and over these 160 years, we have healed our wounds, but our collective memory remains vivid. Thus, when we witness anti-Semitism, it strikes a deep chord with us, as we have experienced similar suffering. This is why Paraguay cast a decisive vote for the creation of the State of Israel in the historic UN vote. Our vote was pivotal, and we have always maintained a close relationship with the Jewish People.

Additionally, during Paraguay’s colonization by the Spanish and the arrival of Jesuit missions, which were centered in our country, Paraguayans developed a profound faith. We are devout Catholics, but as Pope John Paul II said, Jews are our elder brothers. So we feel a deep connection.

Did you discuss this move with Israeli authorities?

This strong bond with Israel led me to visit the country in 2021, where I had the opportunity to speak with Binyamin Netanyahu. I told him that if I became president (this was before the elections), I was committed to moving the embassy to Jerusalem. If Israel says its capital is Jerusalem, who are we to say otherwise?

I reaffirmed this position on many occasions, including last year at the UN, and Israel committed to reopening its embassy in Asunción. We expect this to happen in August. We aim to relocate our embassy to Jerusalem as soon as possible.

Argentinean president Javier Milei also promised to move his country’s embassy to Jerusalem during his campaign. However, he faced opposition in the Senate in Buenos Aires, delaying the move. Did you encounter any opposition to your decision?

No. This sentiment is broadly supported by the Paraguayan population. Of course, some Arab immigrants and small groups might prefer that it not happen, but Paraguayans in general are devout and have a strong spiritual connection to the Jewish People.

One common criticism of relocating embassies to Jerusalem is the perceived security risk, since they become potential targets for terrorist attacks. Are you not afraid of possible reprisals?

I am not afraid. As president of Paraguay, I bear this responsibility on behalf of all Paraguayans. After discussing these issues for many years, I am convinced that this is the majority sentiment. Risks always exist. Paraguay has faced difficult times. We are in a region that can be complicated, but we have chosen not to live in fear. This leads us to make bold decisions, even when they are risky.

For example, we have maintained relations with Taiwan. We are the only South American country recognizing Taiwan, despite its precarious position with China. This decision, part of our collective memory, shows that facing risks can make a nation stronger. This is the path for Paraguay, similar to Israel and Taiwan, which, despite their challenging regions, play significant roles internationally. This is what I envision for my country.

Israel is in an extremely delicate situation after the tragic events of October 7. What are your thoughts on the conflict with Hamas?

First, the October 7 attack was cowardly and deserves international condemnation. Second, Israel has every right to defend itself vigorously. The multilateral system, designed post-World War II, is failing. It does not resolve conflicts, evidenced by nearly 50 military conflicts worldwide, including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The multilateral system is not functioning.

The conflict with Hamas in Gaza is longstanding. Attempts at a two-state solution have not succeeded, so Israel has the right and obligation to defend itself against future attacks. Equating Israel’s democratically elected government with a terrorist group like Hamas is absurd. Paraguay designated Hamas a terrorist group over five years ago, so our stance is clear.

This stance puts you at odds with other regional leaders...

Yes, it clashes with leaders in Colombia, Chile, and Brazil. But my conviction is deeply rooted in centuries of shared history between our peoples.

What is your relationship with Paraguay’s Jewish community?

It is a relatively small community, not publicly prominent. I have many friends and even relatives within the community, and I hold them in great affection. They greatly value our support for Israel and the embassy move.

In these times, don’t you think it’s politically risky to be an ally of Israel?

I don’t want Paraguay to be just an ally. I want it to be Israel’s best friend.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1022)

The post Time to Take a Stand  first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

French president Emmanuel Macron, whose center-left Ensemble grouping was soundly chastened in last week’s first round of parliamentary elections, managed to engineer a winning strategy for the second round that kept Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally party from a widely predicted majority.

The catch? Macron’s strategy handed the most parliamentary seats to a far-left coalition of Communists, socialists, environmentalists, and pro-Islamists, led by Jean-Luc Mélenchon.

Le Pen’s National Rally emerged from the June 30 first-round election with 33% of the vote, putting it in the lead. Under France’s arcane electoral rules, only the top two finishers compete in the second-round runoff election, which happened Sunday. Macron worked out a deal with the far-left grouping, the New Popular Front (NFP), such that whichever party finished third in a given district — either Macron’s Ensemble or the NFP — would throw its support behind the other, ensuring a majority against National Rally.

The strategy worked; National Rally had been widely predicted to win a majority in the second round, but instead finished in third place with 143 seats, behind NFP’s 182 and Ensemble’s 168. The problem now, especially for France’s Jewish population, is that the violent, anti-Israel, pro-Islamist extreme left is in the driver’s seat. Macron’s Ensemble is happy to have salvaged a second-place finish, but it has clearly been humbled and will play second fiddle.

Marine Le Pen’s National Rally seems to still be saddled with fascist baggage; her father, party founder Jean-Marie Le Pen, was convicted in 1987 of downplaying the Holocaust, a crime in France. But lately, National Rally has emerged as Israel’s most robust defender on the French political scene, and it has taken the strongest stance against Islamic immigration into France. The party’s policies have drawn significant Jewish support.

To analyze this mini French revolution, we spoke with Mishpacha’s political analyst Jean-Yves Camus in Paris, who asserts that “the leaders of the Jewish community must urgently request a meeting with Macron” to clarify his stance following the elections.

What is your initial reaction to the election results?

I am surprised. It’s astonishing that the left came out on top in this election. Moreover, the president’s party did quite well. The traditional right received around 67 seats, which is promising, suggesting that the mainstream right has the potential to rebuild for future elections and become a real alternative.

However, the results also demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of the French electorate still fears the far-right National Rally, which performed quite poorly, far from the expected 280 seats. There will likely be internal discussions within the party to understand what went wrong.

What happens next?

President Macron will now try to build a majority with his party, the social democrats, the centrists, and perhaps some members of the conservative right. This is the only possibility. It’s impossible for Mélenchon and the far left to join the government due to significant differences, especially on fundamental foreign policy issues. It would be totally crazy to have Mélenchon and his party in the government. Their economic and foreign policies are absolutely opposed to what we would expect and are extremely divisive. The French do not want something so far left.

Remember, Labour succeeded in the British elections because Keir Starmer expelled the far-left members. So, actual democracy works well by bringing together conservatives, leftist centrists, and excluding the far left.

After the first round, the forecasts on President Macron’s future were catastrophic. Would it be fair to say that Macron had a good election?

It’s undeniable that he succeeded in stopping the National Rally and that his own party performed quite well. The problem is, how do you form a majority with parties that have differing views on all major issues, as is the case with the conservatives and the center-left? It is simply very difficult to have all of them in the same cabinet. At some point, there will be very difficult negotiations to form a coalition.

Macron emerges relatively well from this election primarily because the National Rally did not achieve a majority. If that had happened, it would have been the end of Macron. But it’s unclear how he will manage to achieve a majority. He will have to work very hard to achieve this.

The left emerged as the unexpected victor in the elections, defying all predictions. This bolstered the image of Mélenchon, an outspoken critic of Israel who has dismissed the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7. What might they demand?

The far left is asking for the prime minister’s position, but Mélenchon won’t get it because he is a very divisive figure. That is the big problem with the far left, and this is what the new coalition needs to make clear: that this party is totally unacceptable. Not just for the Jews, but for all of France.

Their economic policies are totally insane. They just want to spend and spend, and you cannot spend more than you earn. Their foreign policy pits them against NATO, against the United States, and, of course, against Israel.

So, at some point, it must be made clear to Mélenchon that what he wants to do is unacceptable. Therefore, an alliance with part of the left, with part of the social democrats, should be sought, leaving Mélenchon out of this.

Assuming it’s possible to exclude the far left, any coalition government will nevertheless have to include left-wing politicians who have not been particularly friendly toward Israel. Can we expect a hardening of relations between France and Israel?

I hope not. It will be necessary for Macron and his party to be very careful on this issue. They need to tell the far left that some things are unacceptable.

If I were part of the leaders of the French Jewish community, I would request an urgent meeting with the president to tell him what is acceptable for the Jews and what is not.

One of the hot topics in Europe is immigration. Do you think the left’s victory will further open the doors for Muslim immigrants to France?

I don’t think there will be changes in that area. The government will need to dialogue with North African countries. Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has made a very good decision by initiating dialogue with the leaders of North African countries to find a solution to the immigration problem. Unilateral action is unlikely to achieve anything.

Macron called these snap parliamentary elections due to his party’s poor performance in the European elections on June 9. Many believe he acted hastily. To what do you attribute his decision to call for snap elections?

My reading, though I’m not sure if this was what he had in mind, and he denies it, is that he faced the possibility of Marine Le Pen being elected president in 2027, and he didn’t want to go down in history as the man who handed the keys of the Élysée Palace to the far right.

So, he made a bet. His bet was to show that the National Rally is totally unfit to govern the country by calling for elections now. He believed the National Rally would get a majority, form a government, and very quickly show the people that it is totally unfit to govern. That would cost the National Rally public support, and Le Pen wouldn’t win in 2027.

In the first round, he lost that bet, because his party only received 22 percent, making him appear very weak. Now, things might change.

Macron has always portrayed himself as a skillful handler of public opinion. What caused the French to turn their backs on him?

His main failing was that he did not have a majority. He had to assemble a coalition that included members who advocated unpopular policies, such as the pensions reform, which was widely rejected, and tried to cut social benefits for those who had lost their jobs. That was also very unpopular.

Another very important point is how he communicates with the French people. He is very intelligent, but he seems very distant, too detached, like someone who doesn’t want to be informed. So, it’s not just a matter of what he’s done, but how he’s done things.

Very few months ago, Macron appointed Gabriel Attal as prime minister, betting that this move would renew his government. What happened?

Gabriel Attal is also very intelligent, but he has never even been a mayor; he lacks sufficient experience for the position. He has been prime minister for a few months and hasn’t had time to show his abilities before the elections. Macron didn’t inform him of his decision in advance, and Attal is likely not very happy with that. He knows he didn’t have time to show the French what he is capable of.

Although it didn’t get its expected majority, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally won 54 new seats. It also won support from many Jews, including Nazi hunter Serge Klarsfeld, despite having anti-Semites in its ranks. How can this be explained?

Marine Le Pen takes a pro-Israel stance and does not want France to recognize a Palestinian state. She does not want a cease-fire in Gaza; she supports Israel continuing the war and destroying Hamas. Regarding the local Jewish community, she said she would not ban the wearing of the kippah in public, would not ban shechitah, and would continue to fund private schools. That sounds quite acceptable. That’s much better than the anti-Semitic rhetoric of the far left.

One could say “those are good news for the Jews,” but history has taught us that trusting what the far right says in Europe is not a smart decision. Because it’s expected that there will be pressure from far-right party members to move away from what the Jewish community requests.

For example, of the 777 National Rally candidates, the press found that 70 of them had posted racist or anti-Semitic comments on social media. A young lady running in the countryside was photographed wearing an SS cap. The problem is that the National Rally did not investigate this candidate, so, despite having normal people, they have a large number of members who do not fit the expected political spectrum. How do you trust a party like that?

Of course, I don’t trust the left either. The left has not only held numerous demonstrations against Israel and the Jews, but the worst thing they did was showing absolutely no compassion after the October 7 massacre. At no point did they address the pain of Hamas’s victims.

Many French Jews are uncertain about the direction of the country. Should we expect a wave of aliyah from France?

I don’t think so. Making aliyah should be a choice, something people do because they consider the State of Israel central to their Jewish identity. If people really want to integrate into Israeli society, they must have strong beliefs, strong values, and a strong commitment, and not be simply looking to escape from France.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1019)

The post French Revolution? first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

Photos: Flash90

The tragedy of October 7 seems like a never-ending horror story, with new information about the extent of the atrocities coming to light all the time. One of the most chilling details that has emerged is the apparent collaboration of UNRWA, the United Nations aid agency dedicated to the Palestinians.

Although it was long known that there was an unhealthy relationship between the agency and Gaza’s Hamas overlords — which led to the Trump administration moving to defund UNWRA in 2018 — the full extent of the organization’s culpability only became clear on October 7. Videos have surfaced showing UNRWA vehicles involved in the attacks, rockets being fired from buildings belonging to the organization, and even Jewish hostages being held in homes of agency workers.

A large group of victims affected in various ways by Hamas’s crimes has decided to take action and is suing UNRWA in court. They have chosen Attorney Gavriel Mairone, founder of MM-Law LLC, a pioneering expert in representing victims of international terrorism, to represent them. Mairone’s record includes winning multimillion-dollar lawsuits against Arab banks for financing terrorism. After taking the case, Mairone asserts, “The most senior authorities in UNRWA were complicit in the massacre of October 7.”

Can you briefly explain the premise of this lawsuit?

We filed a lawsuit on behalf of our clients, who contend that the senior management of UNRWA, and the organization in general, aided and abetted Hamas in perpetrating genocide, crimes against humanity, torture, and weaponization of abuse against women. We are asking for accountability and compensation for the damages, deaths, and injuries to our clients.

There are 101 individuals signed on this lawsuit. Some of them are the estates of people who were killed, some are family members of those victims. Others litigants include former hostages, witnesses to the heinous assaults and attacks, people who were injured, and those who managed to survive by hiding either in fields or in their safe rooms while they were under attack.

What’s your case against the United Nations agency?

UNRWA demanded that all of their facilities be treated according to international law, so that the Israeli forces were not allowed access to them. This was how they created safe houses for Hamas terrorists, who stored ammunition and installed rocket launchers there. The intention was to protect the weapons and to conceal the rocket launchers from Israel, and to thwart Israel’s ability to destroy them before they were used in terror attacks. Many senior Hamas officials were on UNRWA’s payroll and given cover jobs that enabled them to work for Hamas while sitting in UNRWA offices.

You allege that UNRWA knew exactly what was happening.

Of course. They were aware of tunnels being dug around or under their facilities. In some cases, especially in buildings that housed their headquarters, they supplied electricity and other utilities for the tunnels, which served as senior command posts for Hamas in launching the attacks on October 7. They created an education system that spewed endless anti-Semitism, and indoctrinated and radicalized the children, generating a death-cult jihadist society, in which the children grew up thinking that their loftiest aspiration was to die in the name of Allah and for the sake of jihad.

To top all that off, they also provided the cash needed to run weapon smuggling operations. In other words, without UNRWA, Hamas would not have been able to purchase and smuggle such massive amounts of weapons and rockets into Gaza via smuggling channels in Sinai.

How much money did UNRWA funnel to Hamas over the last few years?

The sum is $1.3 billion, to be precise. It was deposited at a JPMorgan Chase Bank in Manhattan and transfers were made from there each month — $20 million a month, every month, since 2018. That cash was used by Hamas to purchase weapons. Cash in those amounts can only be used for criminal purposes.

I’m not saying that everything that was smuggled into Gaza was weapons. Some of it might have been building materials to build tunnels, electrical wiring, air conditioning or lighting systems for the tunnels. It may have been used for luxurious furnishings for Hamas leaders. I don’t know. But there was no way for them to buy weapons without US dollars, in cash.

How did you manage to compile all this information?

All the information comes from the United Nations documents, from audits that they conducted, investigations that the UN conducted on UNRWA facilities, newspaper reports, and reports published by organizations like IMPACT-se and UN Watch. It’s pretty much all based on documentation that’s available to the public.

The bombshell nature of your case is the allegation that it wasn’t just low-level employees involved in helping Hamas, but that the fish was rotting from its head. How did that work?

Each year, the senior management at UNRWA had to review an audited statement that was prepared by the United Nations internal auditors. They then had to present those audited statements to the General Assembly of the United Nations for approval. Those statements contained warnings that cash was being distributed by the United Nations without controls, and that it could be used for illicit purposes.

In addition, year after year, the European Parliament cut off funding for UNRWA following investigations that showed the incitement in its educational system and its use of Hamas materials. Each time this happened, the highest officials at UNRWA promised that they would clean up their act and stop the indoctrination, but they never did anything. There were press reports that weapons and other materials were found in UNRWA facilities. UNRWA’s director general was called to account for it and instead of destroying the materials, he had them returned to Hamas.

By nature of their role, UNWRA employs many locals in Gaza to run their operations, and many, as you say, were in dual roles for Hamas. Was there any official mechanism in place to ensure that things remained above board?

Although the United Nations official policy requires that all of their employees receive both professional training and training in UN values, the on-site inspections conducted on UNRWA facilities in Gaza found that guards at schools were the lowest paid workers and they were employed only with temporary contracts. They had not been given any training. They had no idea that they were supposed to stop anyone from storing weapons in schools. And even if they had wanted to report something, there was no chain of command or hierarchy. They didn’t know who to report to.

In addition, their official working hours were 8 a.m. to 3 p.m., and after that time, there were no guards — not at night, nor on weekends. So if their intention was to prevent weapons from being stored in schools, then you can draw a couple of conclusions from this arrangement. Either they were extremely stupid and had no idea what they were doing, or they had every intention of allowing Hamas to do what they wanted, or they were extremely incompetent. Regardless of their competence or intentions, from a legal standpoint, they aided and abetted Hamas in launching the attacks.

Do the allegations implicate UNRWA’s directors as well?

Yes. UNRWA’s commissioner-general, Philippe Lazzarini, is being sued personally. But it’s not just him; the lawsuit names his predecessor, the deputy director and his predecessor…. We’re talking about the absolute highest level of UNRWA management. And the reason we are suing them in New York is because all the actions and decisions of policy and management, as well as funding decisions, were made in New York by the people named in the lawsuit.

Could Lazzarini and the other officials face prison time if they are found guilty?

This is a civil case that has nothing to do with punitive measures such as prison. We are suing them for damages. We are not a country or a police force. So we have nothing to do with punishing people for crimes. We are saying these people caused damages to my clients and they should pay compensation for that.

How much money are you seeking in compensation?

We didn’t stipulate amounts, which is standard practice in the United States. The families are asking for the United States court and jury to determine what they think would be the proper amount of damages. In America, you ask for compensatory damages. We have punitive damages, prejudgment, post-judgment, interest, and legal fees and expenses. The practice is to let the courts or the jury determine how much they think is appropriate.

The UN is a supra-national behemoth, and even after the events of October 7, it’s hard to see any court finding the UN liable. What gives you confidence that you can prevail?

They have lost cases in the past. We would not have filed this suit if we didn’t think we had grounds to win. We have seen other cases filed against other UN agencies where the UN lost.

A few weeks ago, you secured multimillion-dollar compensation for the relatives of Eitam and Na’ama Henkin, Shilo residents who were murdered by terrorists in 2015. What can you tell us about the Henkin case?

We sued the Central Bank of Iran and two of the largest banks in Iran, the Iranian government, the Syrian government, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. We went to trial a year and a half ago, and the case was based on whether these banks could be held liable for financing Hamas and transferring monies that that could also be used to purchase the guns and pay the salaries for supporting the particular terror cell that carried out the attack. The court accepted our proofs and ruled that all of those entities could be held liable. Again, we didn’t ask for a specific sum in damages, and the total judgment award was $179.4 million.

It’s the largest judgment that anyone has gotten per capita, on any case involving Iran in this context. These large banks all have subsidiaries in London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, and Vienna. So the next stage is for us to try to collect the money from the bank.

How did you decide to specialize in representing terror victims?

I made the decision to specialize in this field 23 years ago, and at the time no one had done it. Before that, I had been practicing law, mostly international tax law, for about 17 years. But then I decided to close the office and to do something different. That’s when I came up with this idea.

At first, people who heard about it thought I was crazy. No one thought it was a viable field. Some years later, people started saying, “Okay, I see the legal theories that you have, but how would you ever collect anything?” Once we succeeded in collecting hundreds of millions of dollars, a lot of other lawyers started doing it as well. I believe I created the niche.

What was your first case?

Our first case was against the Arab Bank on grounds of financing terrorism. We sued them in 2004 in the Eastern District in Brooklyn, in New York, on behalf of hundreds of clients. A few hundred of those were US citizens and the rest were Israelis. It was the first time a case was brought against the bank on these grounds.

Because we were representing both Americans and Israelis, the judge decided to break it up into two parts, because different laws had to be applied. Then she broke the American litigants down into two further groups, so that one group was victims of attacks perpetrated only by Hamas (there were many other terrorist organizations involved).

After a month-long trial, the jury came back with a verdict that the bank had financed each one of those attacks and was liable. And then we entered into a settlement agreement with the bank, and they paid a large amount of money to the 550 Americans we represented. In the interim, President Trump got elected and nominated new Supreme Court judges. And the Supreme Court threw out all of the non-American cases on ideological grounds. So we’re still fighting that case. We went back and filed it in Israel, and we have now been fighting that first case we took on for 20 years. But it is moving forward. —

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1018)

The post A Few Minutes with… Gavriel Mairone first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

Britain’s governing Conservatives look set for a spectacular thrashing at the upcoming election. For a party that won an 80-seat landslide just five years ago, built on a coalition of post-industrial cultural conservatives and the affluent middle class, it seems incredible that it’s headed for near-wipeout on July 4, with some polls predicting it will retain fewer than 100 of the 365 seats it won in 2019.

A lot has changed since the last election — Covid, inflation exacerbated by the war in Ukraine, and a series of self-inflicted errors by Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his successors Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak. Simultaneously, Labour leader Keir Starmer has successfully rehabilitated his party, purged the Corbynite left, wooed businesses, and capitalized on the Tories’ record of economic stagnation and instability to present Labour as the party of economic growth and functioning public services.

Nigel Farage’s populist right-wing Reform party is neck-in-neck with the Conservatives and attracting many of their Northern voters. Meanwhile, the center-left Liberal Democrats are targeting prosperous Southern and Western England, squeezing the Conservatives from three directions.

As the once-mighty party fights for its survival, how has it come to this pitiable state? Can it be saved? Which policies and which leadership are their best bets for returning to government? And importantly for the Jewish community, with tensions in the Labour-voting Muslim community roiling since October 7, has Labour really been detoxified enough to run the country safely?

Former Conservative MP Robert Halfon represented a parliamentary seat that has swung the way of the victorious party since 1983, and is a longstanding champion of blue-collar conservatism. Of Jewish descent, he was chair of Conservative Friends of Israel, one of the most active back-bench MPs, and served twice as education minister. As he retires from front-line politics, he shares his views on the future of his party, the country, Israel and anti-Semitism — at a time when British Jewry is feeling increasingly threatened by the pro-Palestinian movement.

Under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, Labour was rife with anti-Semitism, with Jewish MPs facing unprecedented abuse and harassment from party members, their plight ignored and tolerated by Corbyn. Has Keir Starmer really detoxified the Labour Party?

There’s been some change from the Corbyn years, which were awful, without a doubt. There’s been change at the center, but at the constituency Labour Party level, they hate Israel and have rather unpalatable views. Starmer has changed the center and expelled Jeremy Corbyn, but they have a long way to go. There is still anti-Semitism in the undergrowth. Since the horrific events of October 7, most Labour MPs who speak in the Commons have been critical of Israel. By contrast, most Conservative MPs who speak in the Commons have been pretty supportive of Israel. That’s quite telling.

Can Conservatives be trusted to stand by Israel when David Cameron has previously called Gaza an “open-air prison” and criticized the Israeli government over their military offensive and humanitarian aid?

I disagree. Both Rishi Sunak and Cameron have been very supportive of Israel’s right to defend itself. The PM put an Israel flag on Downing Street after October 7, that’s never happened before. Overall, you could not have in Rishi Sunak, [Home Secretary] James Cleverly, [Communities Secretary] Michael Gove, and people like myself across the Conservative Party, more supportive friends of Israel. They may not agree with everything Israel does, but you have to look at the foundations, which are pretty strong, and I think the PM should be commended for his support of Israel.

The Conservatives’ poll predictions, both on voting intention and constituency level, are dire. How has a party that won a landslide a few years ago disintegrated like this?

I wouldn’t say it’s disintegrated. The Conservative Party is one of the most successful parties in the Western world. But the difficulty we see in the polls is partly due to the effects of Covid, which caused an NHS backlog, and led us to spend £450 billion trying to help people with various schemes, including furlough, and also due to the war in Ukraine, which pushed up energy prices and therefore the cost of living. If you look around Europe, every government faces similar challenges, just as the Conservative government does.

Under the Conservatives, immigration has trebled since 2010, despite repeated promises from consecutive administrations to reduce it. What role do you think these broken promises played?

It depends what you see as broken promises. Immigration is a problem all over Europe. We’ve cut illegal immigration on small boats by a third. We have the Rwanda agreement coming through now, which was opposed by Labour at every stage. Once that agreement is done, we expect it to deter small boats; these dangerous journeys are run by gangs and must be stopped.

Was it a mistake to oust Boris, a proven vote-winner?

Boris was a great campaigner and interesting politician. At the time, there were significant problems with Partygate and other scandals that had gone on. It’s hard to know whether he would make a difference now. When I was an MP, I got many emails from constituents very upset about the parties. It’s not an easy black-and-white question. If there had been no Covid, these things wouldn’t have happened, but I’m a big supporter of Rishi Sunak. He’s a very decent man and has solved a lot of problems.

Was there anything Rishi Sunak could have done to turn things around?

The election is not over yet, so we can’t assume the Tories will lose, but the key thing that Rishi had to do when he took over was to sort out the economy, which he’s done successfully. Inflation is down from 11% to 2.3%. Employment is up, and the cost-of-living challenges, while by no means over, have started to decrease. He’s stabilized the economy, and that was a crucial thing to do.

So why hasn’t that translated into a recovery in the polls?

People are still facing cost-of-living challenges, so polls are still stuck where they were. Every government in Europe has faced changes. Also, the important thing is to do what’s right for the country, not necessarily for political popularity, and Rishi has achieved quite a few great things for the country. He’s sorted out an agreement on Northern Ireland and done some great things on apprenticeships and skills, which is my passion.

Will Reform split the Tories?

We’ve had UKIP and the Brexit Party in the past. These movements come and go. I’m confident that whatever happens, after the election, the Conservatives will come together. We need to appeal to all voters, particularly “floating voters,” who float between different parties at each election. We need to make sure we have policies in cost of living, GP surgeries, housing. I want to build a big tent, not just appeal to a narrow base.

Instead of playing fantasy economics by promising tax cuts as public services struggle, why aren’t the Conservatives just owning up to the fact that they’ve raised taxes, but that it’s not being wasted on pet projects — it’s to pay back the Covid bill?

I completely disagree. There’s no evidence that it’s fantasy economics. Everything’s been carefully costed. We’ve made National Insurance cuts worth £900 to average workers and ensured pensioners are not being taxed twice, on their earned income, and their pensions. A lot of money is being raised from clamping down on tax avoidance and the abolition of the non-domicile tax loophole [a tax exemption for non-permanent residents of the UK] to pay for that. People have been calling for us to cut taxes further, but we’re cutting very carefully and responsibly.

Voters want to see more houses built. Can the Conservatives, in their current form, change planning laws to build more houses, or will it always be constrained by councils in Tory-held areas who campaign against housebuilding in their patch?

We have changed planning laws, but we do need to protect our green belt. We’ve built 2.5 million new homes since we took power in 2010, including 700,000 affordable homes. There’s an £11.5 billion affordable homes program. We’ve announced planning reforms that will help people build more homes beautifully and sustainably.

What’s the one policy you wish you could implement that would make the biggest difference to people?

I did a lot when I was a minister for apprenticeships and skills, and I’m hoping for an apprenticeships guarantee. Every person with the right qualifications should have a guarantee to be able to access apprenticeships. We currently have 690 types of jobs that could be apprenticed. Labour’s policy is to cut apprenticeships. At the moment, small businesses get 100% funding to train 16- to 21-year-old apprentices, funded by the apprenticeships levy. Labour want to abolish the levy and replace it with a skills levy, but studies show it will eliminate 50% to 60% of apprenticeships. The government already has additional skills programs.

If the Conservatives lose, who do you think in the current crop of MPs would be the party’s best bet to regaining power, who can unite both disgruntled moderates and cultural conservatives who are now leaning Lib Dem and Reform?

There are some very good MPs in the party, [Education Secretary] Gillian Keegan, [Security Minister] Tom Tugendhat, and there are some very impressive MPs coming through at the next election like Rupert Harrison, [former Chancellor] George Osborne’s chief of staff, and Nick Timothy [former PM Theresa May’s joint chief of staff]. The new generation is very impressive, but we have to see who gets elected first.

Again, should the Tories lose, as the polls suggest, what do they need to do now to ensure their stint in opposition is a short one?

Be compassionate conservatives, putting social justice at its heart, be a broad church, find ways to reach people who might want to vote Reform, and develop a range of policies that would appeal to both. But we need to have those policies, whether we’re in government or in opposition.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1016)

The post A Few Minutes with… Robert Halfon    first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.