Everywhere Insiders 19: Democracy, Antisemitism & Security

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/22

Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she serves as Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee.

In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Tsukerman discuss Hamas’s partial acceptance of Trump’s Gaza plan, highlighting unresolved disputes over disarmament, oversight, and IDF withdrawal. Tsukerman stresses Hamas’s antisemitic stance, propaganda tactics, and declining support in Gaza. The conversation broadens to Human Rights Watch reports on incendiary weapons, raising questions about credibility and enforcement. They also examine Georgia’s October elections amid repression, Moldova’s contrasting trajectory, and Tucker Carlson’s controversial rebranding, including allegations of financial influence. Tsukerman argues that media manipulation, weak enforcement of international law, and political opportunism underscore persistent threats to democratic processes and global security.

Interview conducted on October 10, 2025, in the afternoon Pacific Time.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Alright, we’ll start at the top here. We’ve had several Nobel Prizes announced. Congratulations to the winners who have made significant contributions to humanity and their scientific endeavours. The most recent and noteworthy concern is the Nobel Peace Prize. María Corina Machado won the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, representing Venezuela. She is an opposition leader.

She is a key unifying figure, says Jørgen Watne Frydnes, chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, stating, “In the past year, Ms. Machado has been forced to live in hiding. Despite serious threats against her life, she has remained in the country—a choice that has inspired millions. When authoritarians seize power, it is crucial to recognize courageous defenders of freedom who rise and resist.” Any thoughts?

Irina Tsukerman: It probably is one of the better examples of Nobel Peace Prize winners in recent years. She has worked tirelessly for many years to bring democracy to the country. It is essential to remember that the Nobel Peace Prize encompasses more than just diplomatic efforts to end armed conflicts. It is also about bringing peace from internal upheaval and authoritarianism, and restoring people’s ability to live in peace. That doesn’t always come from wars. Sometimes it must come from resistance to regimes that turn countries into war zones to preserve power and suppress freedoms.

Venezuela has faced significant challenges for many years. One of the issues that hindered a concerted effort is that until relatively recently, the opposition was deeply divided and unable to unite behind a single candidate. Many of them were various forms of left-wing. While they were publicly anti-authoritarian, many of their policies were not sufficiently distinct from those that led to Maduro’s rule to provide a strong contrast. This made it challenging to mobilize citizens who were inert, passive, or afraid of political involvement into a counter-opposition movement.

Now, in the face of Machado, there is a growing sense of unity. She has been able to focus people’s energy, making her far more effective than many who challenged the Chávez–Maduro machinery but lacked legitimacy and broad public support. That is beginning to change. Combined with the fact that Venezuela is being taken more seriously by the U.S. and others as a legitimate security concern, there is more pressure on Maduro than before. Also, his mishandling of relations with China and failure to pay debts have worsened his position.

This award was well deserved. I hope it will open doors to new opportunities and inspire people to take Venezuela’s democratic struggle more seriously—and not repeat what the U.S. did a few years ago, when there was an opportunity to oust Maduro but the first Trump administration left him hanging.

The U.S. failed to follow through, and the initiative fizzled out, becoming a complete embarrassment. I hope that if such an opportunity ever presents itself again, the U.S. government will actually provide the backing that the opposition needs. We’re seeing some improvement, as evidenced by the bounty now on Maduro’s head. On the other hand, Trump is known for cutting deals with just about anybody, and who knows—if Maduro offers him enough of whatever, he may turn the whole situation around in Maduro’s favour.

Jacobsen: Another possible good one—Turkey and Iraq have reached a draft agreement on sharing water as mutual droughts worsen. Nature does not care about borders. Water flows from the Tigris and Euphrates have been dwindling, which is very significant as the region faces worsening drought conditions. Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein noted that the draft agreement between the two neighbours would be signed in Iraq. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan stated, “We know and understand the difficulties you’re experiencing. Our brothers and sisters in this region… the waters of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers belong to all of us.” That’s an entirely reasonable stance and framing from all three parties, as far as I can tell. Your thoughts?

Tsukerman: Yes, it’s a significant development. A combination of climate change, human mismanagement, and political impasse has plagued the entire region. Multiple disputes and long-simmering tensions over water rights persist. Iran has become a major villain in that story, in the sense that it has literally diverted water from its neighbours—especially Iraq—by damming up the water flow, which in turn affects other countries. Iraq and Turkey have attempted to cooperate in several areas, including connectivity and an economic corridor. Still, security issues, corruption, and political obstacles have hindered progress.

This agreement is more likely to endure and prove somewhat constructive because it’s also much more urgent. Iraq is facing severe droughts, which could lead to potential famine, unrest, migration flows, and clashes that it cannot afford. Turkey is suffering from significant inflation and assorted economic problems, even as it pursues an assertive—some might say aggressive—foreign policy externally. Fixing a water issue could go a long way toward reducing tensions and getting some of their economic and political crises under control, while also removing one primary source of conflict in the region.

Is it going to be resolved overnight? Absolutely not. But any level of cooperation could serve as a positive example for other parties struggling with the same issues—whether in Jordan, Syria, or elsewhere. Kuwait, too, has been experiencing drought and internal sectarian tensions. Removing even one environmental component from the equation will not solve all the region’s problems. Still, it will at least provide one less thing to fight about.

Jacobsen: This one’s not from AP—this is from my inbox, actually. I received something from the Combat Antisemitism Movement. Sacha Roytman, the CEO, stated that the Antisemitism Research Center by CAM has documented 254 antisemitic incidents this week, 150 of which were linked to October 7 7-related protests. In the United Kingdom, an Islamist terrorist murdered two Jews outside a Manchester synagogue.

I think we all generally understand that if there’s a rise in words of hate, there will typically be a rise in some fraction of violent acts as well. That synagogue incident is a good indication of that. October 7 marked the second anniversary of the Hamas attacks. What are your thoughts on this rise?

Tsukerman: People are fooling themselves if they believe that the deal that was just signed—however successful it may or may not be—will resolve this aspect of globalized antisemitism. Various parties are deeply invested, politically and economically, in keeping this going. I’m talking about Hamas networks, political agitators, and even state actors who are infusing media with “resistance” narratives and connecting them to Jewish communities living in European and other Western capitals. I don’t think that’s going to go away easily.

Some of the same people who were all too happy to push for a ceasefire when Hamas appeared to be in a strong position—and who wanted to preserve that advantage—are now coming out against a ceasefire, even a brief pause that would allow humanitarian relief. That underscores what many have been saying: for many Western diaspora agitators and activists, this was less about helping Gaza or preventing humanitarian disaster and more about countering and isolating Israel.

The fact that they don’t seem to care about opportunities to preserve lives on all sides makes it clear that antisemitism isn’t going away. Now that they’re losing ground in their primary rallying point, they will likely redouble efforts to antagonize vulnerable Jewish communities and create internal upheaval in Western countries—putting even more pressure on them.

They’ll redouble their efforts to antagonize vulnerable Jewish communities and stir internal conflict in Western countries. The rise in antisemitism, the synagogue murders—another murder—it’s all connected.

Essentially, the West has allowed these agitators to link Middle Eastern conflicts, material disputes, and Hamas’s genocidal campaigns with unrelated Jewish communal life in other countries. Instead of clamping down on these manifestations, both the woke left and the populist right have scapegoated Jewish communities for the actions or interpretations of the Netanyahu government. And people get angry if you push back—not factually, but emotionally.

Interestingly, nobody seems to care about other communities’ connections to their home countries abroad. When Greeks and Turks have disputes, nobody cares. Literally nobody cares.

Jacobsen: The Dutch are split between a pro-marijuana majority and a minority who want to make it illegal again, and they have their internal fights. I’m not sure if that’s true, but I am being facetious to make your point. That example may be simple, but it illustrates the point—you’re absolutely right. There’s an intense focus on Israel.

I analyzed Mahmoud Abbas and Netanyahu’s legal histories. If you separate them from party politics and issues of national security and look at them individually, Mahmoud Abbas’s main legal issue was in Berlin, where there was a claim of incitement. However, diplomatic or political immunity prevented prosecution. The alleged incitement stemmed from a statement about “50 Holocausts.”

As for Netanyahu, his domestic cases are Case 1000, Case 2000, and Case 4000; notably, Case 3000 doesn’t directly involve him. They deal with allegations of bribery and fraud, such as gifts of champagne and cigars. The ICC investigation, in my view and that of many analysts, appears largely symbolic or performative. Others, however, use it to overextend their political grievances. I think the primary concern remains the domestic charges—fraud and breach of trust. 

Tsukerman: Like with any country dealing with its own internal political issues, that should be left alone. I don’t know why people are so much more interested in Israel’s internal politics than, say, those of Denmark, Canada, or the United States.

Jacobsen: Here in Vancouver, for example, we have a growing homeless population, many struggling with addiction. A large proportion are Indigenous, and many are men. What is the solution to that? 

Tsukerman: It’s much easier to point fingers and feed the outrage industry. Performative activism—flotillas, violent rallies, hashtags—has replaced the hard work of actual politics, of connecting with people and persuading them.

Governing properly means providing platforms and real solutions that don’t marginalize groups, but instead focus on doing the job of government. We live in an age with almost no accountability, where emotionalism and populism—cheap outrage—pass for serious policy debate.

Jacobsen: We are delving more into current affairs than usual, but those are valid points. From my experience as a journalist, I’ve observed three distinct patterns, and I’d say all three—government, traditional right, and conventional left—deserve credit where due.

The government has been very cooperative with me as a journalist—prompt, responsive, and professional in most cases. Only once or twice have officials been dishonest, and those instances were clearly documented. It wasn’t systemic.

The traditional right, in my experience, tends to have issues of trust—particularly when I approach as a centrist or center-left humanist. In religious interviews, especially in interfaith contexts, trust takes longer to build.

As for the traditional left, there have been fewer issues, though occasionally, whether in person or during interviews—less than one percent of cases—bias still shows through.

They’ve been the biggest bullies and emotionally coercive—in the sense that, in philosophy classes, we’re often taught the principle of charity: giving the other person time, letting them make their point, not “gish galloping” them, and allowing them to correct mistakes without punishment. Learning takes time, and it should not be a punitive experience. In my experience, the people who have most often ignored that principle have been on the left.

That’s been my threefold experience so far in my early career as a journalist, publisher, and editor. Others may have different ones. Building on your earlier point about the “woke left” and “woke right,” 

Tsukerman: We’re reaching a hazardous point where having a conversation with someone who holds a potentially different idea is becoming taboo.

Jacobsen: For example, Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson—a Métis counselling psychologist whose work I know well—argues that the self is a fluid construct that changes over time, and therefore cultures change too. Compare Dutch culture or Canadian culture now to fifty years ago, or Métis and First Nations cultures to their earlier forms. Today, over half of First Nations people in Canada identify as Christian, often in syncretic ways—mixing Christian prayers with traditional ceremonies like smudge rituals or sweat lodges.

People don’t want to be treated as a type. That seems nearly universal. They want to be treated as individuals first. When someone is treated as a type, communication breaks down. That’s been a recurring difficulty for me, East to West—what we call “the East” and “the West.”

People see me and assume I’m from Utah, a Mormon, or a “Western cowboy type.” I’ve learned how much will be imputed to me—beliefs I don’t even hold—and sometimes those assumptions are negative. I’ve had to spend time breaking down those barriers. The taboo surrounding different opinions directly ties into the habit of typing people instead of listening to them as individuals.

Tsukerman: That also ties into a broader issue in our society today—an unwillingness to listen. It’s not just political; it’s about basic communication and patience.

Jacobsen: It’s the same in our field. You get one opportunity in two years for a reason. Anyway, let’s get back on track. I know you have other meetings. Sticking to AP—this report says fifty-three civilians have been killed during three days of attacks in and around Al-Fashir Camp in Western Sudan. These conflicts—Sudan, South Sudan—have been ongoing for a long time. Very tragic.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk said Thursday that drone and artillery strikes by the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in the Abu Shouk and Dar al-Salaam neighbourhoods of Al-Fashir, as well as in the Al-Fashir displaced persons camp, killed forty-six people. Over a dozen more died in shelling at one of the last functioning hospitals.

Türk stated, “Despite repeated calls, including for specific care to be taken to protect civilians, they continue instead to kill, injure, and displace civilians, and attack…civilian objects, including internally displaced persons’ camps, hospitals, and mosques—with total disregard for international law.” There’s more to the report, but any thoughts?

Tsukerman: The conflict has become so entrenched as to be nearly intractable—not because the issues are profoundly ideological, but because it’s a deeply sectarian war driven by tribal loyalties. Both sides are being manipulated by power-hungry warlords who care only about maintaining control. Until both of those figures are removed, I don’t see a path to resolution.

The international community badly mismanaged the civilian transition phase following the fall of Omar al-Bashir’s regime. Now, I don’t see how any external or even internal third party could unite enough people to enforce meaningful change and compel these two so-called leaders to step down, put aside their enmity, and actually listen to local demands.

Jacobsen: The U.S. has reportedly purchased Argentine pesos and finalized a $20 billion currency-swap line with Argentina’s central bank. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated in a social media post that “the U.S. Treasury is prepared immediately to take whatever exceptional measures are warranted to provide stability to markets.” Not a bad move. President Javier Milei also said on social media that this partnership represents “a close alliance that will make a hemisphere of economic freedom and opportunity.” The GDP of Argentina was about $633 billion in 2024, which is substantial. That means the swap amounts to roughly one-third of one percent of their economy being infused into the market.

Tsukerman: Yes, approximately. It’s a currency swap valued at about a third of a percent of their annual GDP, which is significant for Argentina. Their economy is now larger than Israel’s, for reference. It’s been growing rapidly. People haven’t given Milei enough credit. Even some of his harshest critics in the media have been surprised at how quickly he’s managed to stabilize parts of the system.

That said, serious challenges remain. There are deep-rooted structural issues that will not be easy for anyone to overcome, no matter how radical their reforms. Moreover, the government itself remains politically fragile.

It’s due to several factors. One is that Milei never had a real political party to begin with, so naturally, he has few genuinely loyal allies. At the same time, there are divergent interests even among those who support La Libertad Avanza. Meanwhile, the opposition—the Kirchnerist Peronists—remain deeply entrenched in Argentina’s social and political institutions, which makes them hard to dislodge.

Coupled with Milei’s austerity measures and his intense focus on reducing debt, this has led to a kind of internal polarization that’s difficult to overcome. The fact that former President Trump has taken a more pro-Russia, pro-China stance than Milei was hoping for certainly hasn’t helped matters.

There’s a clear need to attract foreign investment. However, U.S. Treasury officials who visited recently stated that Argentina’s economy is still too high-risk, which sent a negative signal to investors. There’s also a pressing need to build a stronger skills base among younger generations.

For decades, previous administrations have cultivated widespread social welfare dependency, drawing roughly thirty percent of the population into a system that discourages economic independence. That entrenched mindset will be tough to change and is a significant obstacle to sustained reform.

Adding to that, many of Milei’s early supporters were motivated less by ideological conviction than by frustration with the status quo. That makes loyalty fragile and competence among allies hard to find. In a sense, his rise was a political fluke—but one that needed to happen for Argentina to reset its course.

I’m encouraged that the U.S. is standing by Argentina, because frankly, the U.S. cannot afford to lose another major ally in Latin America. Support should extend beyond this $20 billion swap line. Washington could help more by fostering internal confidence, supporting civic education, and helping train political institutions to promote new ideas.

That’s something the U.S. has historically done well through institutions like the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI), both of which focus on supporting democratic elections and cultivating healthy political climates. That kind of assistance doesn’t require closer ties, but it can be highly effective.

Jacobsen: I’m suitable for international updates today. Thank you for the opportunity and your time today, Irina. 

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.