What's next for Edan Alexander? American freed, but trauma lingers for Hamas hostages
The world cheered as the last living American hostage under Hamas control was reunited with his family.
In an exuberant scene caught on video after his May 12 release, Edan Alexander threw his arms around his parents and shrieked with joy when he spied his siblings. Later, he posted on Instagram wearing shades and holding a bottle of Corona.
But after the initial euphoria, the journey is not always easy for freed hostages. Israeli doctors who have worked with the dozens of captives released in recent months told NorthJersey.com, part of the USA TODAY Network, that many face a complex rehabilitation.
It's still too early to know the full extent of the suffering that Alexander, 21, endured during his nearly 600 days in captivity in Gaza. In an interview published May 14, his father, Adi Alexander, told The New York Times that his son, an Israeli soldier, was held with a bag over his head at times and handcuffed, beaten and interrogated about his military service.
Yael Alexander, Edan's mother, said at a news conference that her son was plagued by hunger, thirst and unsanitary conditions during his time in Gaza, not to mention constant anxiety about the war raging around him.
With bombs and military strikes shaking the tunnels where he was kept, he feared that any moment could be his last, his mother said.
Alexander, who volunteered for the Israel Defense Forces after graduating from Tenafly High School in suburban New Jersey in 2022, was guarding an outpost near Israel's southern border during Hamas' 2023 terror attack, in which 1,200 people died and 251 hostages were taken. The attack triggered a war that has also claimed 58,000 lives in Gaza, according to the territory's Hamas-run health ministry.
Israel says about 20 hostages are still believed to be alive in Gaza, along with the remains of 37 others. Four of the dead are Americans. Roughly 147 have returned home in ceasefire deals or through rescue operations.
Doctors who have treated them say freed captives have expressed relief and joy to be home – but also a difficulty resuming their old lives.
Many suffer from emotional and physical scars, including anxiety, flashbacks and PTSD. Some feel survivor's guilt because there are still hostages remaining in Gaza, said Irwin Mansdorf, a clinical psychologist and senior fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs.
That emotional weight can complicate the rehabilitation process, because many returnees feel they can't avail themselves of their new lives while hostages are still suffering, said Mansdorf, who also served in the emergency division of the IDF Homefront Command.
Some are still held captive by the horrors they experienced in the underground tunnels where they were held for months.
"The hostages went through severe physical and emotional abuse, including maltreatment, lack of food or medical treatment, and physical interrogations, regardless of whether they were civilians or military," said professor Asher Ben-Arieh, dean of the School of Social Work and Social Welfare at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. "Many were subjected to sexual abuse as well."
Ben-Arieh, who has met with prisoners of war, Holocaust survivors and hostages, said he's optimistic about the chances for rehabilitation for the returnees. He recalls a former POW telling him he "had a good life but always had the scars. I believe this can be true for the hostages: They can have a good life but will have to live with the scars."
The time it could take to heal physically and emotionally from such an ordeal depends on a variety of factors, including a victim's resilience, their age and their experience during captivity, said Ben-Arieh, who also directed the Haruv Institute in Jerusalem, which developed protocols for reintegrating Oct. 7 hostages.
Dr. Noya Shilo, head of the Returned Hostages Clinic at Sheba Medical Center in Israel, which has treated 46 released captives, said that in many cases, recovery is a lifelong journey.
'We are all mourners': NY writer's Oct. 7 book finds common ground in victims' stories
That's especially true given the shock of Oct. 7, when Hamas gunmen overran villages and a music festival, shattering Israeli civilians' sense of security.
"Very early on, we understood that this was like nothing else ever done before,' Shilo said. Without any precedent or medical literature to rely on, her team had to think outside of the box to create a new clinical discipline.
'Civilians had been taken hostage from their own homes and saw their world destroyed," she said. "This wasn't just going to take a few days at the hospital."
Recoveries involved working with a team of experts in social work, psychology, yoga therapy, spirituality and alternative medicine, she said.
"This kind of trauma affects the body and mind as well as the spirit," Shilo said.
Medical experts learned that the trauma affected the mental health of everyone in the hostage's social and familial circle. "It was like their entire family was also taken hostage," she said. "We have to also treat the family members or loved ones of those captured or killed."
The therapeutic community took lessons from Holocaust survivors, who were often haunted their entire lives by the atrocities they experienced. Despite the PTSD, she said, many of them 'managed to transform that into growth and led productive lives. We want to make this possibility present for the hostages.'
But Holocaust survivors – many of whom declined to speak about their experience until old age – didn't have to grapple with the pressures of social media or the paparazzi. "The hostages were abducted as anonymous individuals, and now they are famous for the worst thing that happened to them and to Israel," Shilo said. "This is something that requires a lot of process."
Ayelet Noam-Rosenthal, a lecturer in the psychology department of Jerusalem Multidisciplinary College and one of the writers of the Haruv guidelines for the reintegration of child hostages, noted that the "emotional recovery for many of the returning hostages is deeply tied to the remaining hostages in Gaza."
"Many of those who returned found themselves at the center of the public campaign to bring the others home and, as a result, have not been able to focus on their own healing process," she said.
One of the most important aspects of supporting the returning hostages is to help them regain a sense of control, Noam-Rosenthal advised. "Restoring agency is key to healing, and the role of the surrounding environment is to provide quiet support, respect boundaries and follow the returnee's lead," she said.
The protocol also recommends asking the returnee's permission before giving a hug or turning on a light, and offering choices of what to eat.
After Edan Alexander's release, it appeared that the Alexanders were heeding the words of the experts.
They told a reporter at the Tel Aviv hospital where their son was being monitored that it was a blessing just to sit next to him and relax together. "We are chilling and trying to listen," Adi Alexander said.
Yael Alexander added, "He needs time. ... We will give him whatever he needs."
This article originally appeared on NorthJersey.com: Hamas hostage, American Edan Alexander, released; trauma lingers
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


San Francisco Chronicle
19 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Points of Light, founded by the Bush family, aims to double American volunteerism by 2035
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The Bush family's nonprofit Points of Light will lead an effort to double the number of people who volunteer with U.S. charitable organizations from 75 million annually to 150 million in 10 years. The ambitious goal, announced in New Orleans at the foundation's annual conference, which concluded Friday, would represent a major change in the way Americans spend their time and interact with nonprofits. It aspires to mobilize people to volunteer with nonprofits in the U.S. at a scale that only federal programs like AmeriCorps have in the past. It also coincides with deep federal funding cuts that threaten the financial stability of many nonprofits and with an effort to gut AmeriCorps programs, which sent 200,000 volunteers all over the country. A judge on Wednesday paused those cuts in some states, which had sued the Trump administration. Jennifer Sirangelo, president and CEO of Points of Light, said that while the campaign has been in development well before the federal cuts, the nonprofit's board members recently met and decided to move forward. 'What our board said was, 'We have to do it now. We have to put the stake in the ground now. It's more important than it was before the disruption of AmeriCorps,'' she said in an interview with The Associated Press. She said the nonprofit aims to raise and spend $100 million over the next three years to support the goal. Points of Light, which is based in Atlanta, was founded by President George H.W. Bush to champion his vision of volunteerism. It has carried on his tradition of giving out a daily award to a volunteer around the country, built a global network of volunteer organizations and cultivated corporate volunteer programs. Speaking Wednesday in New Orleans, Points of Light's board chair Neil Bush told the organization's annual conference that the capacity volunteers add to nonprofits will have a huge impact on communities. 'Our mission is to make volunteering and service easier, more impactful, more sustained," Bush said. "Because, let's be honest, the problems in our communities aren't going to fix themselves.' According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau and AmeriCorps, the rate of participation has plateaued since 2002, with a noticeable dip during the pandemic. Susan M. Chambré, professor emerita at Baruch College who studied volunteering for decades, said Points of Light's goal of doubling the number of volunteers was admirable but unrealistic, given that volunteer rates have not varied significantly over time. But she said more research is needed into what motivates volunteers, which would give insight into how to recruit people. She also said volunteering has become more transactional over time, directed by staff as opposed to organized by volunteers themselves. In making its case for increasing volunteer participation in a recent report, Points of Light drew on research from nonprofits like Independent Sector, the National Alliance for Volunteer Engagement and the Do Good Institute at the University of Maryland. Sirangelo said they want to better measure the impact volunteers make, not just the hours they put in, for example. They also see a major role for technology to better connect potential volunteers to opportunities, though they acknowledge that many have tried to do that through apps and online platforms. Reaching young people will also be a major part of accomplishing this increase in volunteer participation. Sirangelo said she's observed that many young people who do want to participate are founding their own nonprofits rather than joining an existing one. 'We're not welcoming them to our institutions, so they have to go found something,' she said. 'That dynamic has to change.' As the board was considering this new goal, they reached out for advice to Alex Edgar, who is now the youth engagement manager at Made By Us. They ultimately invited him to join the board as a full voting member and agreed to bring on a second young person as well. 'I think for volunteering and the incredible work that Points of Light is leading to really have a deeper connection with my generation, it needs to be done in a way that isn't just talking to or at young people, but really co-created across generations,' said Edgar, who is 21. Karmit Bulman, who has researched and supported volunteer engagement for many years, said she was very pleased to see Points of Light make this commitment. 'They are probably the most well known volunteerism organization in the country and I really appreciate their leadership,' said Bulman, who is currently the executive director of East Side Learning Center, a nonprofit in St. Paul. Bulman said there are many people willing to help out in their communities but who are not willing to jump through hoops to volunteer with a nonprofit. 'We also need to recognize that it's a pretty darn stressful time in people's lives right now,' she said. "There's a lot of uncertainty personally and professionally and financially for a lot of people. So we need to be really, really flexible in how we engage volunteers." ___
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's new approach to Russia's war in Ukraine might be his worst yet
Donald Trump and his team have spent a fair amount of time recently trying to convince the public that the president's policy toward Russia's war in Ukraine is having a positive impact. In mid-March, for example, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt boasted, 'I can say we are on the 10th yard line of peace, and we've never been closer to a peace deal than we are in this moment.' Two months later, Trump participated in a two-hour phone meeting with Vladimir Putin, and the Republican touted the discussion as a possible breakthrough. 'The tone and spirit of the conversation were excellent,' the American president declared, adding that his chat would 'immediately' lead to new diplomatic negotiations. Soon after, Kyiv came under a large-scale Russian drone and missile attack, described by Ukrainian officials as the largest aerial assault on the country since the war began. It was soon followed by Ukraine's surprise drone attack that proved disastrous for Russia, and that jolted global perceptions. This in turn led Russia to launch one of the largest barrages of missiles and drones of the war at targets across Ukraine. This does not look like 'the 10th yard line of peace.' It was against this backdrop that Trump has apparently come up with a new metaphor. The New York Times reported: As Germany's chancellor, Friedrich Merz, sat beside him watching in silence, President Trump compared Russia and Ukraine to two fighting children who needed to work out their differences for a while before anyone could intervene. 'Sometimes you see two young children fighting like crazy,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. 'They hate each other, and they're fighting in a park, and you try and pull them apart. They don't want to be pulled. Sometimes you're better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart.' 'And I gave that analogy to Putin yesterday,' the Republican added. 'I said, 'President, maybe you have to keep fighting and suffering a lot, because both sides are suffering, before you pull them apart, before they're able to be pulled apart.'' So, a few things. First, comparing this conflict to a dispute among children on a playground is unhelpful, and Trump complaining about anyone engaging in juvenile behavior is unwise, given everything we know about his temperament and frequent tantrums. Second, the idea that the White House is prepared to let Russia and Ukraine 'fight for a while' overlooks the inconvenient fact that they've already been fighting for a while. Indeed, Russia invaded Ukraine back in February 2022 — more than three years ago — which Trump described at the time as 'genius' and part of a 'wonderful' strategy. But let's also not lose sight of the evolution of the American president's thinking. Trump's Plan A for the war in Ukraine was ending the conflict within 24 hours by way of a secret strategy he assured voters was real. When it became obvious that this strategy didn't actually exist, Trump moved on to Plan B: He told Russia that if it failed to end the conflict quickly, the White House 'would have no other choice' but to impose new economic sanctions. When Putin ignored those threats and Trump failed to follow through, the American president floated Plan C (international economic penalties designed to force a ceasefire), Plan D (Trump-backed bilateral talks between Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy) and Plan E (bilateral talks between Trump and Putin). Plan F — White House passivity — is now increasingly coming into focus. Trump's latest plan to end the conflict is apparently to stop trying to end the conflict. This post updates our related earlier coverage. This article was originally published on

Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The AI lobby plants its flag in Washington
Top artificial intelligence companies are rapidly expanding their lobbying footprint in Washington — and so far, Washington is turning out to be a very soft target. Two privately held AI companies, OpenAI and Anthropic — which once positioned themselves as cautious, research-driven counterweights to aggressive Big Tech firms — are now adding Washington staff, ramping up their lobbying spending and chasing contracts from the estimated $75 billion federal IT budget, a significant portion of which now focuses on AI. They have company. Scale AI, a specialist contractor with the Pentagon and other agencies, is also planning to expand its government relations and lobbying teams, a spokesperson told POLITICO. In late March, the AI-focused chipmaking giant Nvidia registered its first in-house lobbyists. AI lobbyists are 'very visible' and 'very present on the hill,' said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) in an interview at the Special Competitive Studies Project AI+ Expo this week. 'They're nurturing relationships with lots of senators and a handful of members [of the House] in Congress. It's really important for their ambitions, their expectations of the future of AI, to have Congress involved, even if it's only to stop us from doing anything.' This lobbying push aims to capitalize on a wave of support from both the Trump administration and the Republican Congress, both of which have pumped up the AI industry as a linchpin of American competitiveness and a means for shrinking the federal workforce. They don't all present a unified front — Anthropic, in particular, has found itself at odds with conservatives, and on Thursday its CEO Dario Amodei broke with other companies by urging Congress to pass a national transparency standard for AI companies — but so far the AI lobby is broadly getting what it wants. 'The overarching ask is for no regulation or for light-touch regulation, and so far, they've gotten that," said Doug Calidas, senior vice president of government affairs for the AI policy nonprofit Americans for Responsible Innovation. In a sign of lawmakers' deference to industry, the House passed a ten-year freeze on enforcing state and local AI regulation as part of its megabill that is currently working through the Senate. Critics, however, worry that the AI conversation in Washington has become an overly tight loop between companies and their GOP supporters — muting important concerns about the growth of a powerful but hard-to-control technology. 'There's been a huge pivot for [AI companies] as the money has gotten closer,' Gary Marcus, an AI and cognitive science expert, said of the leading AI firms. 'The Trump administration is too chummy with the big tech companies, and basically ignoring what the American people want, which is protection from the many risks of AI.' Anthropic declined to comment for this story, referring POLITICO to its March submission to the AI Action Plan that the White House is crafting after President Donald Trump repealed a sprawling AI executive order issued by the Biden administration. OpenAI, too, declined to comment. This week several AI firms, including OpenAI, co-sponsored the Special Competitive Studies Project's AI+ Expo, an annual Washington trade show that has quickly emerged as a kind of bazaar for companies trying to sell services to the government. (Disclosure: POLITICO was a media partner of the conference.) They're jostling for influence against more established government contractors like Palantir, which has been steadily building up its lobbying presence in D.C. for years, while Meta, Google, Amazon and Microsoft — major tech platforms with AI as part of their pitch — already have dozens of lobbyists in their employ. What the AI lobby wants is a classic Washington twofer: fewer regulations to limit its growth, and more government contracts. The government budget for AI has been growing. Federal agencies across the board — from the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy to the IRS and the Department of Veterans Affairs — are looking to build AI capacity. The Trump administration's staff cuts and automation push is expected to accelerate the demand for private firms to fill the gap with AI. For AI, 'growth' also demands energy and, on the policy front, AI companies have been a key driver of the recent push in Congress and the White House to open up new energy sources, streamline permitting for building new data centers and funnel private investment into the construction of these sites. Late last year, OpenAI released an infrastructure blueprint for the U.S. urging the federal government to prepare for a massive spike in demand for computational infrastructure and energy supply. Among its recommendations: creating special AI zones to fast-track permits for energy and data centers, expanding the national power grid and boosting government support for private investment in major energy projects. Those recommendations are now being very closely echoed by Trump administration figures. Last month, at the Bitcoin 2025 Conference in Las Vegas, David Sacks — Trump's AI and crypto czar — laid out a sweeping vision that mirrored the AI industry's lobbying goals. Speaking to a crowd of 35,000, Sacks stressed the foundational role of energy for both AI and cryptocurrency, saying bluntly: 'You need power.' He applauded President Donald Trump's push to expand domestic oil and gas production, framing it as essential to keeping the U.S. ahead in the global AI and crypto race. This is a huge turnaround from a year ago, when AI companies faced a very different landscape in Washington. The Biden administration, and many congressional Democrats, wanted to regulate the industry to guard against bias, job loss and existential risk. No longer. Since Trump's election, AI has become central to the conversation about global competition with China, with Silicon Valley venture capitalists like Sacks and Marc Andreessen now in positions of influence within the Trump orbit. Trump's director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy is Michael Kratsios, former managing director at Scale AI. Trump himself has proudly announced a series of massive Gulf investment deals in AI. Sacks, in his Las Vegas speech, pointed to those recent deal announcements as evidence of what he called a 'total comprehensive shift' in Washington's approach to emerging technologies. But as the U.S. throws its weight behind AI as a strategic asset, critics warn that the enthusiasm is muffling one of the most important conversations about AI: its ability to wreak unforeseen harm on the populace, from fairness to existential risk concerns. Among those concerns: bias embedded in algorithmic decisions that affect housing, policing, and hiring; surveillance that could threaten civil liberties; the erosion of copyright protections, as AI models hoover up data and labor protections as automation replaces human work. Kevin De Liban, founder of TechTonic Justice, a nonprofit that focuses on the impact of AI on low income communities, worries that Washington has abandoned its concerns for AI's impact on citizens. 'Big Tech gets fat government contracts, a testing ground for their technologies, and a liability-free regulatory environment,' he said, of Washington's current AI policy environment. 'Everyday people are left behind to deal with the fallout.' There's a much larger question, too, which dominated the early AI debate: whether cutting-edge AI systems can be controlled at all. These risks, long documented by researchers, are now taking a back seat in Washington as the conversation turns to economic advantage and global competition. There's also the very real concern that if an AI company does bring up the technology's worst-case scenarios, it may find itself at odds with the White House itself. Anthropic CEO Amodei said in a May interview that labor force disruptions due to AI would be severe — which triggered a direct attack from Sacks, Trump's AI czar, on his podcast, who said that line of thinking led to 'woke AI.' Still, both Anthropic and OpenAI are going full steam ahead. Anthropic hired nearly a dozen policy staffers in the last two months, while OpenAI similarly grew its policy office over the past year. They're also pushing to become more important federal contractors by getting critical FedRAMP authorizations — a federal program that certifies cloud services for use across government — which could unlock billions of dollars in contracts. As tech companies grow increasingly cozy with the government, the political will to regulate them is fading — and in fact, Congress appears hostile to any efforts to regulate them at all. In a public comment in March, OpenAI specifically asked the Trump administration for a voluntary federal framework that overrides state AI laws, seeking 'private sector relief' from a patchwork of state AI bills. Two months later, the House added language to its reconciliation bill that would have done exactly that — and more. The provision to impose a 10 year moratorium on state AI regulations passed the House but is expected to be knocked out by the Senate parliamentarian. (Breaking ranks again, Anthropic is lobbying against the moratorium.) Still, the provision has widespread support amongst Republicans and is likely to make a comeback.