In 1959, the United States welcomed Fidel Castro with more than a small dose of optimism, mistaking revolutionary fervor for democratic potential.

By Stephen M. Flatow

As a new, allegedly more humane government takes hold in Syria, American policymakers face a familiar temptation: To embrace a fresh face that promises stability and reform after years of chaos and bloodshed. But history warns us against such hopeful naivety.

In 1959, the United States welcomed Fidel Castro with more than a small dose of optimism, mistaking revolutionary fervor for democratic potential. That mistake proved costly. Today, as Syria reconfigures its political order, we must not forget the hard lessons of Cuba’s transformation into a Cold War adversary.

When Castro marched triumphantly into Havana, effectively replacing the American- backed dictator Fulgencio Batista, many in Washington viewed him as a charismatic reformer who would restore dignity and justice to the Cuban people. Initially, Castro downplayed his Marxist ideology, assuring the world that his revolution was rooted in nationalism and anti-corruption, not communism. The US extended diplomatic recognition and even offered some economic support.

Americans were curious. I’m old enough to remember Edward R. Murrow and his TV show Person to Person. Each week, Murrow would interview someone whom he thought his viewers would be interested in learning about. Guests ranged from singers to actors to politicians. In February 1959, the guest was Fidel Castro.

During the interview, which took place with Murrow in New York and Castro in his apartment on the 23rd floor of the Havana Hilton, Castro appeared to be wearing pajamas. He spoke of his mother, whom he hadn’t seen in four years, that he was not a communist, and that he hoped to be in the United States soon.

His son, Fidelito, who attended public school in Queens, New York, for a while, was introduced holding a puppy that was given to his father as a present. Hugging his son, Castro came across as a real family man.

Within a year of his accession to power, however, the reality emerged. Castro consolidated power, silenced dissent, “disappeared” opposition, and aligned Cuba with the Soviet Union. Land reforms masked wholesale expropriations. Promises of democratic governance gave way to authoritarian rule. A nation once seen as a neighborly partner became a staging ground for nuclear brinkmanship in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

The parallels with Syria are not perfect, but they are striking. The civil war has left Syria a fractured and traumatized country. New leadership is arising in the guise of one Ahmed al-Sharaa. Already, his new regime is presenting itself as a modernizing force, a departure from the brutality of Bashar al-Assad’s rule. But we must remember: Revolutionary governments are not born with democratic values; they often acquire or abandon them in response to incentives and pressure.

We must ask: Who is Sharaa, what does he believe, and who stands behind him?

The 42-year-old has a documented history of affiliations with Islamist extremist groups, including offshoots of both al-Qaeda and, indirectly, ISIS. Known by his nom de guerre Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, Sharaa joined al-Qaeda in Iraq shortly after the 2003 US invasion.

He was captured by American forces and imprisoned at Camp Bucca from 2006 to 2011. Upon release, he returned to Syria and, in 2012, founded Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda, with backing from al-Qaeda’s central command.

In 2013, Sharaa resisted a merger between al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. This refusal led to open conflict between al-Nusra and what became ISIS. Sharaa pledged allegiance directly to al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, maintaining al-Nusra’s independence from ISIS.

In 2016, al-Sharaa announced that al-Nusra had severed ties with al-Qaeda and rebranded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham.

The following year, he led the formation of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, a coalition of Islamist factions. HTS established a governance structure in Syria’s Idlib province, providing public services and collecting taxes, much like Hamas did in Gaza and Hezbollah did in Lebanon, but faced criticism for authoritarian practices.

In late 2024, HTS launched an offensive that led to the fall of Assad’s regime, and Sharaa became the de facto leader and was officially appointed president in January.

The Saudis and US President Donald Trump are responding to Sharaa’s courting of global legitimacy, offering a narrative of reform and stability to attract Western support. But we must remember: If we extend recognition or aid too hastily, we risk legitimizing a regime that could turn repressive, radical, or anti-American once firmly in power.

Moreover, the geopolitical stakes are high. As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly said, “Israel lives in a tough neighborhood,” and Syria sits right in the middle of a region rife with Iranian influence, Russian ambition, and fragile neighbors like Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq. If Sharaa decides, as Castro did, to align with America’s rivals, we could face another entrenched adversary in that “tough neighborhood.”

To avoid repeating history, US policy should be grounded in skepticism, not sentiment. Any diplomatic engagement must be conditional, incremental, and tied to verifiable actions: genuine power-sharing, protection of minority rights, disarmament of militias, and clear distancing from malign foreign actors.

The US must also engage with civilian society. The Cuban mistake wasn’t merely about misreading Castro; it was about ignoring the voices that warned of his true intentions. We cannot afford to make the same error in Syria.

In foreign policy, hope is not a strategy. As we watch a new regime take shape in Damascus, we must look to the past to guide the future. The ghost of Havana 1959 looms large. Let us not welcome another wolf in reformer’s clothing.

The writer is an attorney and the father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered in an Iranian- sponsored Palestinian terrorist attack in 1995. He is the author of A Father’s Story: My Fight for Justice Against Iranian Terror and is the president of the Religious Zionists of America-Mizrachi.

The post Donald Trump’s embrace of Syria’s Sharaa echoes Fidel Castro’s welcome – analysis appeared first on World Israel News.

Look who’s in trouble now.

By Humberto Fontova, FrontPage Magazine

“A defamation suit against Netflix from the head of a Cuban exile organization accuses the streamer of distributing propaganda for Cuba by portraying him as a terrorist and drug trafficker in Olivier Assayas’ political spy thriller Wasp Network,” wrote the Hollywood Reporter this week.

“The Film is an obvious attempt to rewrite and whitewash history in favor of the communist Cuban regime and is factually inaccurate,” the complaint states.  “Brothers to the Rescue leader Jose Basulto alleges Netflix and Assayas falsely depicted him as a puppet of the United States and traitor to Cuba while romanticizing the criminal activity conducted by Fidel Castro’s regime.

“The defamation action is the second from a Cuban exile arguing that the movie falsely maligns Cuban exiles as terrorists and otherwise unsavory characters. Ana Martinez sued in 2020 over her character, played as a promiscuous ‘party girl’ by Ana de Armas, in the movie.”

The film was filmed partly in Cuba itself, you see, and as the suit explains: “Cuba’s communist party requires the ‘script, storyboard or synopsis of the project’ to be submitted and expressly states that any project that paints Cuba in a negative light will be denied a permit,” the complaint reads. “Thus, filming the true and accurate story was never even a possibility.”

Of course this submission policy is standard operating procedure for Soviet-style totalitarian regimes. Problem is, many people nowadays forget that Cuba qualifies as one with bells on. The identical policy no do doubt applied to Stephen Soderbergh’s “Che.”  But nobody in Hollywood seemed to bat an eye at such interference with “artistic integrity.” In fact, “Che” leading man and producer of Benicio Del Toro publicly thanked the Stalinist Castro regime for their unstinting help with producing the film, as was revealed right here at Frontpage.

Earlier, Robert Redford was required to give a secret private screening of his now famous Motorcycle Diaries to Fidel Castro and Che Guevara’s widow before releasing the film. Only after the approval by these two Stalinists was the movie released by this adamant proponent of artistic freedom.

Naturally a film full of malicious lies about Cuban exiles and jointly produced by KGB-tutored Stalinist apparatchiks got a rousing thumbs-up from the New York Times. “Olivier Assayas’s latest picture, “Wasp Network” (streaming on Netflix), looks like his most conventional work,” read the film review by The New York Times upon its release in 2020.

“But it also pushes this theme to a dizzying, eventually exhilarating, extreme…There are times in which “Wasp Network” feels like a John le Carré tale drenched in Miami sun, or even a serious-minded “Top Gun” variant….(the movie) is based on the nonfiction book “The Last Soldiers of the Cold War” by Fernando Morais…”

The movie Wasp Network is based on the nonfiction book “The Last Soldiers of the Cold War” by Fernando Morais. Among the Brazilian Morais’ more noteworthy proclamations:

“Fidel Castro was the greatest leader of the 20th Century! A blessing for the world!” How could The New York Times possibly pan a movie with such credentials?

In brief, the movie glorifies KGB-trained Cuban spies who—as the Morais book tells it—infiltrated Miami in a desperate attempt to thwart terrorism by Cuban exiles. The innocent and beneficent Castro regime had no choice, you see, considering its sole historic rationale is providing free health care, while somehow surviving a diabolical U.S. “blockade.”

In fact, Castro’s KGB-trained terrorists (members of “The Wasp Network”) were convicted by U.S. Federal jury of everything from espionage to conspiracy to commit murder, and these convictions were upheld all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Here’s what happened:

On September 14, 1998, the FBI uncovered a Castro spy ring in Miami and arrested 10 of them. Four others managed to scoot back to Cuba. These became known as the “Wasp Network,” or “The Cuban Five” in Castroite parlance. According to the FBI’s affidavit, the 26 charges against the convicted Castro-spies championed in the movie were:

• Gathering intelligence against the Boca Chica Air Naval Station in Key West, the McDill Air Force Base in Tampa and the headquarters of the U.S. Southern Command in Homestead, Fla.
• Compiling the names, home addresses and medical files of the U.S. Southern Command’s top officers, along with those of hundreds of officers stationed at Boca Chica.
• Infiltrating the headquarters of the U.S. Southern Command.
• Sending letter bombs to Cuban-Americans.
• Spying on McDill Air Force Base, the U.S. armed forces’ worldwide headquarters for fighting “low-intensity” conflicts.
• Locating entry points into Florida for smuggling explosives.

The Wasp Network also infiltrated the Cuban-exile group Brothers to the Rescue (portrayed in the movie as drug-runners and terrorists.) In fact, these Cuban exiles flew unarmed planes to rescue Cuban rafters in the Florida straits, also known as “the cemetery without crosses.”

The estimates of the number of Cubans dying horribly in the “cemetery without crosses” run from 30-55,000. Brothers to the Rescue risked their lives almost daily, flying over the straits, alerting and guiding the Coast Guard to any balseros, and saving thousands of these desperate people from joining that terrible tally. (Prior to Castroism, by the way, Cuba was swamped with more immigrants per-capita than the U.S., including during the Ellis Island years.)

So you can imagine how the Cuban exodus embarrasses the Castro regime and its huge network of (unregistered) propaganda agents in the U.S.

By February of 1996, Brothers to the Rescue had flown 1,800 of these humanitarian missions and helped rescue 4,200 men, women and children. That month, members of the Wasp Network passed to Castro the flight plan for one of the Brothers’ humanitarian flights over the Cemetery Without Crosses.

With this info in hand, Castro’s Top Guns jumped into their MiGs took off and valiantly blasted apart (in international air space) the lumbering and utterly defenseless Cessnas. Four members of the humanitarian flights were thus murdered in cold blood by communist spies glorified in the movies. Three of these murdered men were U.S. citizens, the other a legal U.S. resident. Again, these murdered Americans are the ones portrayed as “terrorists” by the movie hailed by The New York Times.

In fact, the propaganda qualities of the film were blatantly obvious even to reviewers who– unlike your humble servant—lack an anti-communist “axe to grind.” To wit:

“It’s unusual for a Western film to present spies for Fidel Castro as the heroes. And that novelty, alas, is one of the few selling points of “Wasp Network.”

“The Cuban regime opened all the doors for us” (to shoot the movie), said Director Olivier Assayas, who lived in Havana for half a year to make the movie. “It was extraordinary because it was the first time that the Cubans opened the doors to have a filmmaker explore their contemporary political history.” (Untrue–totalitarian Cuba’s doors were opened wide for Benicio Del Toro and Steven Soderbergh to make their propaganda film “Che.”)

It must be quite an honor for director Assayas to get the enthusiastic backing and cooperation for his film of the Stalinist regime that jailed, tortured and exiled the most filmmakers in the modern history of the Western Hemisphere–and criminalized artistic freedom.

As mentioned earlier, the suit sites Stalinist Cuba’s own regulations expressly stating “that any project that paints Cuba in a negative light will be denied a permit,” to film in the country. In this case, the regulation applies to a movie production company.

But those knowledgeable about Cuba who watch (usually in rage and amazement) “reporting” from Cuba by the likes of CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, etc. know it also applies to “news” networks.

The post Anti-Communists sue Netflix for defamation appeared first on World Israel News.

The motion against Sanders was initiated by Castro’s nephew Mario Diaz-Balart.

By Aaron Sull, World Israel News

On Thursday, House Democrats voted to quash a Republican-sponsored resolution condemning leading presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ recent comments praising policies of Cuba’s former dictator Fidel Castro.

The motion was initiated on Wednesday by House Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart. whose aunt was married to Castro.

“I remind the senator and the progressive movement that the Castro regime is a threat, not only by the way to the national security of the United States, but also to all of the democracies in this hemisphere. This regime has been on the list of state sponsors of terrorism for many years for its support of other terrorist states and organized terrorist groups,” Diaz-Balart said during a press conference.

“In contrast with the blatantly false, irresponsible, and hurtful comments of the Castro Regime apologists, this resolution stands in solidarity with the people of Cuba as they struggle against totalitarianism while demanding human rights, democracy, and freedom,” he added.

Sanders came under fire on Sunday following a 60 Minutes interview on CBS, during which he said that some of Castro’s social programs provided great benefit to Cubans.

“It’s unfair to simply say everything was bad,” Sanders said at the time. “When Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program. Is that a bad thing?”

During Tuesday’s televised Democratic South Carolina presidential debate, Sanders said his position is no different than that of former President Barack Obama, who in 2016 praised Cuba’s achievements on education and health care

“What I said is what Barack Obama said in terms of Cuba. That Cuba made progress on education,” Sanders said, before being interrupted by boos from the crowd.

“Really? Really?” Sanders fired back.

“Literacy programs are bad? What Barack Obama said is they made great progress on education and health care. That was Barack Obama,” he said.

The post Motion to condemn Sanders’ pro-Castro comments quashed by Democrats appeared first on World Israel News.

Senator Bernie Sanders, leading contender for the Democratic party leadership ahead of the U.S. 2020 election, dismissed criticism of his praise for Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

The post WATCH: Sanders dismisses Castro criticism appeared first on World Israel News.

Gal Gadot’s decision to play Lisa Howard, a Jewish-American journalist who became an unabashed apologist for Fidel Castro, should be used as an opportunity to reveal the evil of the Cuban regime.  

 By: Henry Roth

I’m not ashamed to admit it: I love Gal Gadot.  A strong, beautiful woman, star of some terrific action movies, a proud Israeli, what’s not to like?  And if I seemed like a giddy fan-boy before, my admiration for Ms. Gadot rose into the stratosphere when I heard that she would be making a film about the life of Hedy Lamarr, a true Jewish heroine.  Ms. Lamarr was a beautiful and successful actress, but more importantly, she was also a brilliant scientist whose discoveries in the area of telecommunications played a vital role in defeating the Nazis.  Truly a fabulous role model for women everywhere and a life worthy of being recorded for posterity.

But just minutes after visiting the tattoo parlor to have her name permanently etched on my body, I learned that Ms. Gadot is also planning to make a film about Lisa Howard, a Jewish-American journalist who became Fidel Castro’s lover and unabashed apologist.

Two thumbs up to Ms. Gadot if she is intending to expose both Ms. Howard’s wilful blindness to Castro’s repressive police state as well as the liberal proclivity to whitewash the crimes of ‘enlightened’ socialist states, but given that Ms. Gadot has been immersed for some time now in the progressive quagmire that is Hollywood, I’m worried that the film will glorify this “complicated, fascinating woman” (Gadot’s own description of Howard).  I suppose the same adjectives could apply to Eva Braun or Tokyo Rose or Aileen Wuornos (you might have to look up that one).

Howard as Castro’s useful idiot

I’d like to point out some aspects of Ms. Howard’s past that Ms. Gadot might want to take into account while crafting her script.  For instance, Ms. Howard did her very best to convince American lawmakers to normalize relations with Cuba, ignoring Castro’s criminalizing political dissent, murdering opponents and aiding revolutionary/terrorist causes around the world.  She even hosted a cocktail party for Che Guevara, a man responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people.  Ms. Howard was no hero; she was a gullible, useful idiot attempting to give a veneer of respectability to a destructive and inhuman political philosophy.

Ms. Gadot should also be aware of modern Cuba’s very close alliance with the Palestinian cause, beginning with Raul Castro’s visit to Gaza in 1959 and the subsequent formation of a very warm friendship between Fidel Castro and Yasser Arafat.  Representatives of Hamas have openly admitted that they have received substantial financial and military assistance from Cuba.   Cuba also broke off diplomatic relations with Israel in 1973 (guess they were upset at Israel successfully warding off extermination in the Yom Kippur War) and they were one of the primary sponsors of the U.N.’s ‘Zionism is Racism’ resolution.  Cuba continues to be one of Israel’s most vociferous critics at the U.N. and in other international forums.

Remember the pain and suffering

So, Ms. Gadot, I ask you: Is this a person and is this a regime whose virtues anyone should be extolling?  You have the right to tell this story in any way you wish, but please remember the pain and suffering of the Cuban people that Ms. Howard didn’t believe was worthy of concern, and please do not forget that Cuba is directly responsible for the deaths of many innocent Israelis through its material support of Palestinian terrorism.

I have faith that you will be a true Wonder Woman, having the courage to tell the real story about this enthusiastic accomplice of murdering tyrants.

The post  Opinion: Plea to Gal Gadot appeared first on World Israel News.

Trump, who was unapologetic about the call from the Taiwanese president, received both criticism and praise for breaking protocol.

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump stirred controversy on Friday by accepting a call from Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen to congratulate him on his election victory.

“The President of Taiwan CALLED ME today to wish me congratulations on winning the Presidency. Thank you!” Trump said on Twitter.

“Interesting how the U.S. sells Taiwan billions of dollars of military equipment but I should not accept a congratulatory call,” he wrote in another tweet, regarding the media storm resulting from his taking the call.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi lodged a brief complaint Saturday, stating that the call from the Taiwanese leader was “just a small trick by Taiwan.”

“The one-China policy is the cornerstone of the healthy development of China-U.S. relations and we hope this political foundation will not be interfered with or damaged,” he stated.

“It must be pointed out that there is only one China in the world and Taiwan is an inseparable part of Chinese territory. The government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legitimate government representing China,” Geng Shuang, a ministry spokesman, said in a statement.

Taiwan’s leaders insist that the island is a sovereign state.

The U.S. has maintained unofficial ties with Taiwan since 1949 and has been required by law to supply the island with defense weapons. Since 2009, the Obama administration has approved $14 billion in arms sales to Taiwan.

The “intimate and relaxed” discussion lasted about 10 minutes, Ing-wen said.

The Taiwanese presidential office said Trump and Tsai discussed issues affecting Asia and the future of U.S. relations with Taiwan. “The (Taiwanese) president is looking forward to strengthening bilateral interactions and contacts as well as setting up closer cooperative relations,” the statement said.

“Tsai also told Trump that she hoped the U.S. would support Taiwan in its participation in international affairs, the office said, in an apparent reference to China’s efforts to isolate Taiwan from global institutions such as the United Nations,” AP reported.

There was no indication of an imminent policy change in Washington.

Media was filled with condemnation by media analysts and politicians suggesting that Trump lacks understanding of the ramifications of the conversation. Delaware Senator Chris Coons, for instance, said that Trump’s “shoot-from-the-hip style” is concerning.

Others disagreed.

Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, for example, said he “commend[s] President-elect Trump for his conversation with President Tsai Ing-wen, which reaffirms our commitment to the only democracy on Chinese soil.”

Referring to President Barack Obama’s promotion of dialogue with the Iranian leaders and his meeting in Havana with late President Fidel Castro last spring – it was the first visit by a U.S. president to Cuba since 1928 – Texas Senator Ted Cruz tweeted that he “would much rather have Donald Trump talking to President Tsai than to Cuba’s Raul Castro or Iran’s Hasan Rouhani. This is an improvement.”

By: World Israel News Staff

The post Trump’s call with Taiwan leader creates media storm appeared first on World Israel News.

Students at American University in Washington, D.C., respond to the question: Do you have a more favorable opinion of Fidel Castro or Donald Trump?

The post WATCH: College students prefer Castro to Trump appeared first on World Israel News.