During last year’s march for Israel in Washington, DC, the Jews of Cleveland were represented in far larger numbers than communities of similar size. To explain why, Samantha Baskind looks to history and geography:

Cleveland’s first group of Jewish immigrants arrived in 1839 from Bavaria with the explicit intention to build a community in the growing city. They were sent off with a letter from their ancestral community offering blessings for the journey and an exhortation never to forget their Jewish values: “The promise to remain good Jews may never and should never be broken during the trip, nor in your home life, nor when you go to sleep, nor when you rise again, nor in the raising of your children.”

The city’s Jewish population swelled to an all-time high of 86,540 in the years following World War II, when economic prosperity and a baby boom, combined with ethnic and racial tensions, lured Jews to the eastern suburbs. As families moved, so did the congregations and institutions they had long nurtured. Today, the community is home to over 40 synagogues, nine Jewish schools of all denominations, seven youth groups, four kosher groceries, and at least three kosher pizzerias. Perhaps most remarkable is the compact nature of the demographic structure, with the overwhelming majority residing in just a few square miles.

The consensus among Clevelanders is that this geographical closeness contributes to the success of its institutions. “Cleveland Jews work so well together because we chat,” said nonagenarian Albert Ratner, a former board chair of the Jewish Community Federation whose family has lived in Cleveland for over 100 years.

In a sense, the most successful negotiation with Hamas was the recent agreement securing the release of Edan Alexander, the last living hostage with a U.S. passport. Unlike those previously handed over, he wasn’t exchanged for Palestinian prisoners, and there was no cease-fire. Dan Diker explains what Hamas got out of the deal:

Alexander’s unconditional release [was] designed to legitimize Hamas further as a viable negotiator and to keep Hamas in power, particularly at a moment when Israel is expanding its military campaign to conquer Gaza and eliminate Hamas as a military, political, and civil power. Israel has no other option than defeating Hamas. Hamas’s “humanitarian” move encourages American pressure on Israel to end its counterterrorism war in service of advancing additional U.S. efforts to release hostages over time, legitimizing Hamas while it rearms, resupplies, and reestablishes it military power and control.

In fact, Hamas-affiliated media have claimed credit for successful negotiations with the U.S., branding the release of Edan Alexander as the “Edan deal,” portraying Hamas as a rising international player, sidelining Israel from direct talks with DC, and declaring this a “new phase in the conflict.”

Fortunately, however, Washington has not coerced Jerusalem into ceasing the war since Alexander’s return. Nor, Diker observes, did the deal drive a wedge between the two allies, despite much speculation about the possibility.