Zırhlı Amfibi Hücum Aracı ZAHA göreve hazırlanıyor
Türk savunma sanayisi şirketi FNSS tarafından geliştirilen ZAHA, üstün hareket kabiliyetiyle kötü deniz koşullarında amfibi piyade personelinin denizden sahile taşınması, ihtiyaç halinde gerek ateş gücüyle harekata destek olma gerekse personeli beka kabiliyetiyle güvenli şekilde iç kesimlere kadar taşıma gibi görevleri yerine getirecek.
Paletli yürüyüş sistemiyle karada azami saatte 70 kilometre hıza ulaşan ZAHA, itki sistemiyle denizde azami 7 knot süratle hareket edebiliyor.
ZAHA, zırh yapısıyla üstün beka kabiliyetine, uzaktan komutalı silah sistemiyle üstün ateş gücüne sahip bulunuyor.
Zorlu deniz koşullarında ters dönme durumunda kendini düzeltebilen ZAHA, belli sayıda mayın geçit açma sistemiyle amfibi piyade personelini emniyetli şekilde muharebe sahasına taşıyacak.
Dışişleri Bakanlığı’ndan yapılan açıklamada şu ifadeler kullanıldı:
”Rodos Başkonsolosluğumuzda görevli Sözleşmeli Sekreterimizin Rodos’ta, Onikiadalar Karma Yeminli Jüri Halk Mahkemesi’nde 13 Aralık 2021 tarihinden bu yana üç gündür devam eden duruşması neticesinde, sözde casusluk suçlamasıyla 5 yıl ağır hapis cezasına çarptırılmasını kınıyoruz.
Sözleşmeli Sekreterimizin 18 Aralık 2020 tarihinde tutuklanmasıyla birlikte, Yunan basınında, kamuoyunu ve adaleti baskı altına almaya matuf temelsiz haber ve değerlendirmelerin yayınlandığı görülmüştür.
Üç gündür Rodos’ta devam eden duruşmada, uluslararası hukuk ve devletler özel hukuku dahil, hukukun tüm temel ilkeleri ayaklar altına alınmış; yapılan usul ihlalleriyle savunma hakkı dahi ihlal edilmiş; savcı ve mahkeme heyeti önyargılı bir tutumla hareket etmişlerdir.
Mahkeme kararının daha açıklanmadan Yunan basınında yer bulması da yürütülen sürecin usulsüzlüğünü bir kez daha gözler önüne sermiştir.
Personelimizin haklarının korunması amacıyla, Yunan iç hukukunda ve uluslararası hukukta gereken tüm adımlar atılmaya devam edilecektir.” ifadeleri kullanıldı.
YUNAN YARGISI “CASUSLUK İDDİASIYLA” HAPİS CEZASI VERDİ
Rodos’taki Onikiadalar Karma Yeminli Jüri Halk Mahkemesinin, Türkiye’nin Rodos Başkonsolosluğunda sözleşmeli sekreter olarak görev yapan Sebahattin Bayram için casusluk yaptığı iddiasıyla hapis cezası kararı aldığı bildirildi.
Yunan basınında yer alan bilgiye göre, 36 yaşındaki Bayram için 5 yıl ağır hapis cezası verildi. Karar oy birliğiyle alınırken, Bayram’ın Yunan devleti aleyhinde casusluk yaptığı ileri sürüldü.
Halil İnalcık’ın tarihi uyarısı!
Bu toprakların yetiştirdiği en önemli isimlerden birisi olan Halil İnalcık hocanın bazı konuşmalarını dinlerken keşke gençlerimize de bu tarihi kayıtları derslerde izletebilsek diye geçirdim içimden .
Tarih dersinde kuru bilgi vermekten vazgeçip tarih şuuru kazandırmaya odaklanmamız gerekiyor.
Bunun içinde İnalcık hoca gibi mümtaz şahsiyetleri çocuklarımıza okutmalı tanıtmalıyız.
Batıya gitme ve orada kalma rüyası gören yeni kuşakların İnalcık gibi batıyı iliklerine kadar bilen değerleri tanımaya ihtiyacı var.
Batıyı tanımadan kuru kuruya yapılan batı karşıtlığına gençlerimiz pek pek kulak asmıyor.
Bu sebeple İnalcık hocanın batıya dair değerlendirmeleri çok kıymetli.
Çünkü İnalcık batıyı çok iyi bilen batının da kendisini yakından takip ettiği bir isimdi.
Öyle ki Bernard Lewis gibi oryantalistler ve Türk tarihi üzerine çalışan batılı araştırmacılar çalışmalarında İnalcık’ı referans alır.
Bizim kültürümüzü küçümseyen medeniyetimizin önde gelen şahsiyetlerini tanımayan batılılar bile hocanın birikimi karşısında saygı duymak zorunda kalır.
İlber Ortaylı’nın “Tamamı ile yerli bir insan”. Dediği İnalcık içinden çıktığı toplumu komplekse kapılmadan çok iyi temsil eder.
Objektif tarihçiliğinden hiçbir zaman taviz vermez. Türk milletinin değerleriyle barışık bir ömür yaşar.
Batıya gidip sarhoşluk yaşayanlardan olmaz. Hassasiyetini, ülkeye bağlılığını ve değerlerimize bağlılığını kaybetmez.
Batılı devlet ve bilim adamları tarafından iltifat görmesine rağmen bir talebesine “Bu batılıların yüzümüze güldüğüne bakma. Bizi küçümserler bunlar’ der.
Türkleri düşmanlık derecesinde eleştirenlere karşı dik durup doğruları haykırır. Milletinin geçmişinden gocunmaz.
Fuat Sezgin Hocanın batılıların yüzlerine karşı İslam medeniyetinin büyüklüğünü haykırdığı gibi İnalcık Hoca da Türk tarihinin asaletini başını eğmeden ilim kürsülerinde önyargılı bilim adamlarına çekinmeden haykırır.
Osmanlı tarihini dikkate almadan dünya tarihinin yazılmasının mümkün olmadığını yabancı tarihçilere cesurca anlatır.
Yazdığı eserlerle dünya tarihçiliğinde çığır açan hoca bu asil duruşunu son nefesine kadar korur.
Türkiye’ye döndükten sonra da bu duruşa ve şuura sahip nesiller yetiştirmek çalışır çabalar.
Talebelerinin kendisini de geçecek ve ülkelerine hizmet edecek şekilde yetişmelerini ister.
Ülke olarak İnalcık gibi hocalara ihtiyacımız var.
Bugünü en doğru okuyabilenler dünü en iyi bilenlerdir.
Dün bilgisi olmadan yarınlar kurulamaz. Devleti yönetenler sağlam bir tarih bilgisine sahip olmalıdır.
Bilgi sahibi değillerse en azından o alanda birikim sahibi olanlardan istifade etmeye mecburdurlar.
Çünkü içinde bulunduğumuz çağda yaşanılan sorunların çoğu önceki çağlardan bize miras kalmıştır.
O yüzden kritik zamanlarda çözülmesi zor gibi görünen sorunların anlaşılmasında tarihçilerin yol göstericiliğine ihtiyaç duyarız.
Tarihçilerin kutbu Halil İnalcık da bizim yol göstericilerimizden birisidir.
Eserleri her zamankinden daha çok okunmalı anlaşılmalı ve tartışılmalıdır.
Türkiye’nin, gündemini gereksiz yere meşgul eden meczuplardan kurtulup hakikatli ilim adamlarının ufuk açıcı fikirleriyle istikametini belirlemekten başka çaresi yoktur.
Halil İnalcık gibi ömrünü hakikate ve bilime adayan dev şahsiyetlerin fikirlerinin ışığında yol almak bizi yol boyunca karşımıza çıkacak tehlikelerden korur.
Şimdilerde sulandırılan dış güçler meselesini İnalcık hocanın iki hatırası üzerinden yeniden değerlendirmeliyiz.
Dış güçler sulandırılacak ya da savsaklanacak bir husus değildir.
Ne sağın ne solun bu konuda gayrı ciddi yaklaşımda bulunması kabul edilemez.
Özellikle muhalefet partisi görünümlü dışarıdan güdümlü bazı yapıların bu konuda algılarla oynaması milletimizin gözünden kaçmamaktadır.
Bu topraklara ilk adımımız attığımız andan bugüne dış güçler sorunu olmuştur ve hep olacaktır.
Bunu göz ardı etmek ahmaklıktan öte aptallıktır.
Bakın dış güçleri çok iyi bilen alanının otoritesi bilge tarihçimiz ne diyor:
1950’li yıllarda Münih’te düzenlenen Bizantinistler kongresinde, Bavyera Kardinali’nin ”Ayasofya’nın kubbesi üzerinde Hıristiyanlığın yıldızı parlayacak.” sözü üzerine salonda dakikalarca alkışlandı.
Sizi uyarırım tarihçi olarak. Bütün bunlar oyundur. Batı hiçbir zaman vazgeçmedi.
Haçlı ruhunun içimizdeki sözcüleri çırpınmaya devam ediyor.
Batı, İstanbul’un Fethini ve Ayasofya’yı hiçbir zaman unutmadı. Avrupa’nın Haçlı görüşü Papalık eliyle devam ediyor.’’
Evet, İnalcık hoca o sahneyi görünce tüylerim diken diken oldu der. Tarafsız olarak biline tarihçilerin bile dakikalarca ayakta alkışlamasına hayret eder.
Yine bir mecliste “Bu adamların zihin dünyalarında neler olduğunu ben ilk defa çok canlı olarak orada gördüm.
Bunların niyeti İstanbul’da Vatikan misali bir mahalle oluşturmak istiyorlar, Balat tarafında” deyince talebelerinden birisi
“Hocam kusura bakma ama hangi devirde yaşıyoruz. Tamamen Türkleşmiş, İslamlaşmış bir Şehir bizden alamazlar diye itirazda bulunur.
Bunun üzerine merhum şu tarihi cevabı verir:
Rehavete kapılmayın. Stalin 1 gecede 500 bin Kırımlıyı Kırımdan çıkardı ve nereye gittikleri belli olmayacak şekilde yok oldu.
Hitler sayısı ihtilaflı olmakla birlikte belki milyona varan Yahudi’yi fırsat kollayarak yok etti.
Allah korusun konjonktür aleyhe dönecek olursa bu adamların gözü kara.
Yapabilirler yapamazlar ayrı yapmaya teşebbüs edebilirler. Çok dikkatli olmamız gerekir”
Hoca uyarıcılık vazifesini yaptı ve gitti.
Bize düşen rehavete kapılmamak.
İspanya’dan Müslümanları çıkarmak için 800 sene bekleyip sonunda emellerine ulaşanlar ardan yüzyıllar geçse de kinlerinden vazgeçip düşmanlıklarını bitirecek mi elbette hayır.
İçimizde haçlıların sözcülüğünü yapanlar istedikleri algı operasyonu yapsınlar.
Batı hiçbir zaman bize dost olmadı.
Açık ve net.
Cemil Meriç ne diyordu:
“Bütün Kur’an’ları yaksak, bütün camileri yıksak, Avrupalının gözünde Osmanlıyız; Osmanlı, yani İslâm.
Karanlık, tehlikeli, düşman bir yığın.”
Millet olarak teyakkuzda olmaya devam edip bilimde teknolojide kültürde sanatta kısacası her alanda bu toprakların kıymetini bilen yerli ve milli zihinle milletine öncülük edecek yeni nesiller yetiştirmeliyiz.
Dış güçler diye ebedi bir sorunumuz var. Bu coğrafyanın kaderi bu.
Çok uzağa gitmeye gerek hemen yanı başımızda kurulan ABD üsleri bize dış tehdidin hangi seviyede olduğunu apaçık şekilde göstermektedir.
Dedeağaç’ı göremeyen Türk aydını çoktan Türkün aydını olmaktan çıkmıştır.
Bizim Halil İnalcık gibi namuslu vatansever hocalarımızın tarihi uyarılarına kulak verip ve bu noktada bir gayretin içine girmekten başka şansımız yok.
Bizim başka vatanımız yok. Başka Türkiye yok sözü slogandan ibaret değil. Gerçekten yok.
O halde İnalcık gibi Âlimlerin uyarılarına uygun hareket edip bin yıl daha burada kalma iradesine uygun bir şekilde çalışarak istiklalimize sahip çıkıp istikbale emin adımlarla yürüyeceğiz.
Batı bizi nasıl unutmadıysa tarihi katliam ve vahşetlerle doldu batıyı biz de hiçbir zaman unutmayacağız.
İhanete fırsat vermeyeceğiz.
Almanya Başbakanı Scholz: Rusya ile yapıcı diyaloga hazırız
Scholz, “Rusya ile yapıcı diyaloga hazırız. Gerilimin tırmanması döngüsünü durdurmak amacıyla karşılıklı anlayışa varmak için daha sık girişimde bulunmaya hazır olmak zorundayız ki, bu, daha önce Normandiya sürecinin yardımıyla geçici olarak mümkün olmuştu” dedi.
Sosyal Demokrat Partili Başbakan, sözlerini şöyle sürdürdü:
“Fakat bu, Almanya’nın yeni ‘Doğu politikası’ diye yanlış anlaşılmamalı. Birleşik bir Avrupa’da ‘Doğu politikası’ ancak Avrupa’nın ‘Doğu politikası’ olabilir. Bu da Avrupa hukuku ve barışçı düzeninin ilkelerini temel alır ki, Rusya, bunlara uymayı taahhüt etmiş, lakin Kırım’ı ilhakı bağlamında ağır şekilde ihlal etmiştir.”
Berlin’in Rusya-Ukrayna sınırındaki durumu büyük endişeyle izlediğini ve değerlendirme yaparken de aynı politikayı güdeceğini söyleyen şansölye, “Toprak bütünlüğünün herhangi bir ihlalinin ağır bedeli olacak ve bu konuda Avrupalı ortaklarımız ve transatlantik müttefiklerimizle tek ses halinde konuşacağız” vurgusunu yaptı.
Belçika’dan itiraf gibi PKK raporu: Sivil topluma verilen destekten faydalanıyor
Dış kaynaklı aşırıcılığın Belçika için doğrudan tehdit olmadığı ancak sorunlu bir alan olduğu belirtilen raporda, PKK’nın AB’nin terör örgütleri listesinde yer aldığı, örgütün bazen amaçlarına ulaşmak için aşırı şiddet kullandığı ifade edildi.
Buna karşın örgütün Avrupa’da ve Belçika’da “imajını korumak” adına şiddeti desteklemediği savunularak, PKK’nın asıl amacının Avrupa’nın terör listesinden çıkmak olduğu vurgulandı.
Raporda, “Belçika, PKK’nın Avrupa yapılarında merkezi bir rol oynamaktadır” denildi ve Belçika’daki PKK yapılanması hakkında bilgi verildi.
YEREL DERNEK ARACIYLA HARAÇ TOPLUYOR
Belçika istihbaratı, PKK’nın yerel dernekler gibi araçlarla siyasi ve mali faaliyetler yürüttüğünü belirtti. Bu faaliyetler içinde “devrim vergisi toplanması” da yer aldı.
PKK’nın ayrıca Belçika’da bazı medya şirketlerinin sahibi olduğu, bu şirketler aracılığıyla kendi televizyon ve radyo kanalları için propaganda üretildiği bilgisi verildi.
“PKK’nın ülkemize yönelttiği ana tehdit aşırıcılıktır” ifadesine yer verilen istihbarat raporunda, PKK’nın aynı zamanda Belçika’daki diğer aşırı sol örgütlerle bağlarının bulunduğu kaydedildi.
SİYASİ AMAÇLARI İÇİN SİVİL TOPLUMA VERİLEN DESTEKTEN FAYDALANIYOR
Örgütün istediğinde kalabalıkları harekete geçirmesinin kamu düzenini bozabildiği ve Belçika’daki Türk toplumu ile bazen şiddet olaylarına varan gerginliğe yol açtığı belirtildi. Belçika istihbaratı ayrıca şu değerlendirmede bulundu:
“PKK’nın birçok yapısı ve organının mevcudiyeti aynı zamanda müdahale tehdidine yol açmaktadır. Pek çok uluslararası kuruma ev sahipliği yapan Brüksel, PKK için önemli bir siyasi arenadır. PKK, siyasi amaçlarına ulaşabilmek adına ülkemizde sivil topluma verilen destekten faydalanmaktadır. Bunu yaparken gerçek amacını gizlemekte, sahte isimler ve kılıflar kullanmakta, tüm Kürtleri temsil ettiğini ileri sürmektedir.”
RAPORDA IŞİD DE YER ALDI
Belçika istihbarat raporunda IŞİD yenilgiye uğratılmasının terör tehdidini bertaraf etmediği, radikalleşmenin ve radikalleşmeye neden olan faktörlerin halen devam ettiği vurgulandı.
Suriye ve Irak’taki krizin bu bölgeden gelen sığınmacıların artmasına neden olduğu, Belçika’da terör suçlarından hüküm giymiş ve cezalarının sonuna yaklaşan, artık terör tehdidi oluşturmayan önemli sayıda kişiyi topluma yeniden kazandırma zorluğuyla karşı karşıya olunduğu kaydedildi.
Kovid-19 salgınının ideolojik aşırıcılık için verimli bir zemin teşkil ettiği, silahlanma eğiliminin arttığı ve hükümetlerin aşırı siyasi kanatlarca giderek daha fazla meşru hedef olarak görüldüğü belirtildi.
Raporda ayrıca, Suriye ve Irak’taki savaşın etkilerinin ve sonuçlarının bölgede uzun yıllar hissedileceği ifade edilerek, bunun en yüksek göç alan ülkelerden Belçika için de geçerli olduğu, bazı sığınmacıların Belçika’nın güvenliğine tehdit oluşturduğu, Suriye’de sınırlı sayıda Belçikalı yabancı terörist savaşçının hala bulunduğuna dikkat çekildi.
2020 yılında çatışma bölgesinden kurtulan Belçikalı yabancı terörist savaşçıların çoğunun hapishanede veya PYD/YPG tarafından kontrol edilen kamplarda bulunduğu kaydedilen raporda, Suriye ve Irak’tan 130’dan fazla yabancı terörist savaşçının Belçika’ya döndüğü bilgisi yer aldı.
Karabağ’daki Türk-Rus Ateşkes Gözlem Merkezi’nden görüntüler
Hillary for President in 2024? It Could Happen
Her lust for power will keep her in the running as long as she is still drawing breath.
Hillary Clinton recently decided that it would be an opportune time to release a video of herself weeping (suspiciously, as Stephen Kruiser noted) through the speech she had planned to give upon winning the 2016 presidential election. Considering the fact that Hillary is one of the most artificial and calculating human beings on the planet, the question must be asked: Why now? Hillary has had over four years to release this speech, of which she is clearly proud. What is different about the situation today that led her to inflict this speech on an unwitting world? Former Trump adviser and current Gettr CEO Jason Miller has an answer: Hillary is positioning herself to become the Democrats’ presidential nominee in 2024.
By the time the 2024 election rolls around, Hillary will be 77, but Joe Biden, if he is still with us as much as he is now, will be nearly 82, and Kamala Harris will still be as obviously unfit to be president of the United States as she is now, even if by then she has served some time (heaven help us) in the Oval Office. The Democrat bench, as Stacey Lennox recently detailed, is even weaker. So why not Hillary? After all, she maintains that she won the election in 2016 in the first place; she clearly believes that she can defeat Trump (if he is indeed the Republican nominee, and again, in her view) in 2024.
The time may be right for Hillary. A new poll has a humiliatingly low 22% of Americans and 37% of Democrats wanting Biden to run again in 2024; meanwhile, only 12% (and 16% of Democrats) want Kamala Harris to be the Democrats’ standard-bearer in the next presidential election. And who comes after that? Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who enjoyed a long unannounced vacation as the supply chain crisis spiraled out of control? Gavin Newsom, the authoritarian governor of the California SSR? Stacey Abrams, who worked against the people of her own state for the sake of woke posturing against Georgia’s voter integrity law?
Miller explained that the rationale for Hillary’s recent reading of her victory speech was “all about gaming 2024.” He added: “Hillary’s trying to humanize herself and inject herself into the 2024 presidential discussion. That’s all it is. Let’s just be brutally crass and direct about it. The fact of the matter is that Crooked [Hillary] is circling around Joe Biden almost like a buzzard looking at the carcass on the ground, saying, ‘It’s not going to be Joe Biden, it’s not going to be Kamala Harris. How can I go and insert myself into this national discussion and remind people that I’m still here?’”
This analysis gains plausibility from Hillary’s introduction to her speech. She said: “I’ve never read this out loud. But it helps to encapsulate who I am, what I believe in, and what my hopes were for the kind of country that I want for my grandchildren, and that I want for the world, that I believe in that is America at its best.” Why would the kind of country that Hillary wants for her grandchildren and for the world be of anything except mild historical interest unless she intends once again to attempt to impose her vision on the rest of us from the Oval Office?
As my PJ Media colleague Chris Queen noted, Hillary “might be the least self-aware person in history.” She was never held accountable for her misuse of classified information on her email server or for her mismanagement and coverup of the Benghazi jihad attack in which four Americans were killed. Yet she recently had the audacity to proclaim: “We have to hold people accountable for their actions, particularly when those actions threaten our way of life, our rule of law, our future as a democracy.”
If Hillary were held accountable for her actions, there would be no question of her running for president in 2024 or ever, even if her brain is kept alive in a bubbling vat of nutrients and she declares her candidacy every four years until 2168. But it may be that at this point, the woman and the moment have met. As Biden and Harris continue to make a hash of things, the Democrats may ultimately conclude that Hillary is their best choice for 2024. One thing seems certain: Hillary Clinton’s all-encompassing ambition will ensure that she can never be completely counted out for a presidential run as long as she is still drawing breath.
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 23 books including many bestsellers, such as The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), The Truth About Muhammad and The History of Jihad. His latest book is The Critical Qur’an.
Iran’s March Toward Making a Nuclear Bomb
While Biden appeases and turns a blind eye.
The story of the Bidenites’ insufficient response to Iran’s continued march toward enriching uranium to the weapons-grade level of 90% purity is here: “Biden fiddles around while Iran builds a bomb and hegemony,” by Mitchell Bard, Israel Hayom, December 2, 2021:
According to The New York Times, American officials have warned Israel that repeated attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities are counterproductive; meanwhile, the Biden administration has twiddled its thumbs as Iran advances closer to the nuclear threshold. Reports now indicate Iran could produce enough fissile fuel in a month to build a weapon, and the Iranians have repeatedly said they will not discuss a stronger agreement that as a candidate, US President Joe Biden said he would negotiate. Nevertheless, he has not been dissuaded from appeasing the mullahs in the hope they will return to the old deal they never complied with.
It is of course intolerable for the Bidenites to warn Israel away from doing what it must to slow down Iran’s nuclear progress; there is no reason to believe that these attacks have been, as the Americans claim, “counterproductive”: they have done exactly what they were supposed to do, to set back Iran’s nuclear program, and the Israel’s leaders believe these attacks have delayed Iran’s progress by as much as a year. It is Israel, not the U.S., that is Iran’s main target, and the Jewish state has a right to defend itself as it sees fit, even if that makes Iran less amenable to negotiations in Vienna. While Iran delayed a return to those negotiations by five months, all that while working on enriching uranium, the Bidenites continued to appease Iran, hoping to lure it back to the talks in Vienna. When Iran did return to negotiations, it made maximalist demands, insisting that all sanctions should be lifted before the talks would resume. Even Secretary Blinken said on Dec. 2 that the Iranians were not “serious” about negotiations, and again warned that “other options” would have to be considered.
Unfortunately, former President Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign failed (maybe four more years would have made a difference, but that was unlikely given the lack of international cooperation). Now, following precedents set by presidents Obama and Trump, Biden is allowing Iran and its proxies to attack US forces and allies with impunity.
The Iranians In mid-October attacked U.S. forces stationed at the Tanf base in Syria with a drone strike; the Americans did not retaliate for what some claim was Iran’s response to a previous Israeli attack on an Iranian base in Syria. The Bidenites did not respond to that attack by Iran for fear of derailing the talks which they have been so intent on resuming.
Iran has no incentive to change its policies given the display of US weakness highlighted by the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan that emboldened jihadis everywhere (and the mullahs in Iran) by demonstrating their commitment to their faith is stronger than America’s loyalty to its allies.
The withdrawal from Afghanistan and that country’s takeover by the Taliban marked the American defeat in its longest war. To make matters worse, the “chaotic withdrawal” from the country led to tens of thousands of Afghans who had worked with the Americans being left stranded in the country; even some American citizens, four months after the American withdrawal, are still in Afghanistan trying to get out. The whole spectacle did not inspire confidence among America’s Middle East allies, who are also well aware that the Administration wants to cut back its forces in the Middle East and to pivot toward Asia, to counter the looming threat, economic and military, of China.
Consider a few other responses to Iranian aggression:
Biden withdrew support for Saudi Arabia’s attempt to stop Iranian-backed Houthi forces from overrunning the country. Subsequently, the Houthis stormed the US Embassy in Yemen and are now threatening a strategic, oil-rich city near the Saudi border.
The Bidenites were more concerned about the Saudi role in creating a “humanitarian crisis” in Yemen than they were about the Houthi threat – the Houthis, of course, were just as responsible as the Saudis for that “humanitarian crisis” – and the devastating effects of Yemen’s seven-year civil war on its people. After the Bidenites had scolded the Saudis, the Houthis expressed their “gratitude” by storming the American Embassy and, heartened by Washington’s public dressing-down of Riyadh, the Houthis are now laying siege to the city of Marib.
Biden wants to transfer weapons to the Lebanese army despite Israeli warnings that they will end up in the hands of Hezbollah and strengthen Iran’s control over Lebanon.
The Israelis know that in the past Hezbollah has been able to seize weapons from the Lebanese Army’s arsenal; why should the situation be any different now? If anything, Hezbollah is much stronger than before, and the Lebanese Army weaker. Hezbollah is not to be dissuaded by the West or Gulf Arabs giving more arms to the Lebanese Army, which have been, and can again be taken by Hezbollah. Only a popular uprising by the economically devastated population of Lebanon, demanding that Hezbollah voluntarily disarm and cease to act as Iran’s viceroy in the country, has a chance of succeeding in ending Hezbollah’s rule.
Biden has not responded to numerous provocations at sea, including Iranian forces nearing US naval vessels, seizing allies’ ships and attacking Israeli-owned vessels.
There have been several incidents where Iranian small craft have harassed, in groups, American ships in the Persian Gulf. The Iranian navy has seized the ships of our allies, including one tanker belonging to the UK. Others have been taken, too, such as the Liberian-flagged Gulf Sky, and taken back to Iran. The Americans could have destroyed one or more of the small craft harassing their ships; it would have been a salutary warning to the Iranians. But so far the Bidenites have refrained from any such response. One assumes this was prompted by the eagerness of Washington to make sure Iran would return to the nuclear negotiations in Vienna.
Biden has allowed Iranian-backed attacks on US bases in Syria and Iraq to go unpunished.
The latest attacks on the American military stationed at the Tanf Base in Syria, and the attacks by Iranian-backed militias on American soldiers in northern Iraq, were both allowed to pass without a military response. In fact, only twice since becoming President has Biden ordered very modest strikes on Iranian-backed Iraqi militias. And while the negotiations have renewed in Vienna, he is unlikely to.do anything that Iran might seize upon as a “provocation” leading it to once again walk away from those negotiations.
The only good news is that Biden has not eased sanctions. In addition to maintaining Trump’s sanctions, he did impose a few others, notably on individuals and companies involved in the production of drones (ironic given his criticism of Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign and its failure), which was apparently his idea of a tough response to the Iranian attack on our base in Syria. Still, as talks resume in Vienna, the Iranians made clear they will not return to the old deal and will not do anything without sanctions relief. Fears remain that Biden so desperately wants an agreement that he will relent.
These fears were enhanced by reports of a supposed interim deal floated by Robert Malley, one of the people who helped put the world in the dangerous position it is now in by promoting the original Iran deal. Under this crazy idea, the United States would release billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets, which, like the payoff to get the original deal, will give Iran more funds for its nefarious activities. In exchange, Iran would only be expected to suspend, not reverse, the enrichment activities that have brought it closer to the purity needed for a bomb. Not surprisingly, Israel opposed this idea.
Fortunately, the Iranians have not accepted Malley’s proposal, but are insisting on a complete lifting of the sanctions – and not just the unfreezing of Iranian assets – before they will return to any deal on their uranium enrichment program. And that has proved to be, even for the Bidenites, impossible to accept.
Jewish Anti-Semitism Denial
Canadian Jewish professors and self-loathing.
Richard L. Cravatts, Ph.D., a Freedom Center Journalism Fellow in Academic Free Speech and President Emeritus of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, is the author of Dispatches From the Campus War Against Israel and Jews.
In what can only be characterized as the latest example of Jewish self-loathing, a group of morally deranged faculty has joined forces to create a new organization, the sole purpose of which is to derail the adoption and use of the working definition of anti-Semitism drafted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).
The organization, the Jewish Faculty Network (JFN), is comprised of some 140 Canadian academics who last March published a statement in which they decried the IRHA definition, suggesting at that time that, “as Jews,” they wished to “add our voices to a growing international movement of Jewish scholars to insist that university policies to combat antisemitism are not used to stifle legitimate criticisms of the Israeli state, or the right to stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people.”
What Jews could possibly interfere or take issue with a tool for identifying anti-Semitic behavior and expression when it manifests itself? Why would anyone, Jewish or not, try to reject a working definition of anti-Semitism that has been adopted by some 35 countries, international organizations, and 30 universities, all of which see the IHRA definition as an important vehicle for ameliorating a surge of anti-Semitism, both on campuses and outside the university walls?
The answer is revealed when these woke activist professors finally disclose why they object to efforts to have the IHRA definition adopted on their respective campuses: regardless of whether or not it helps expose anti-Semites, for the JFN the greatest concern, “the most serious problem . . . is that the definition is tied to a series of examples of which many are criticisms of the Israeli state.” For this group, whose members are an active and vocal part of the campaign to decry the very existence of the Jewish state, linking instances of anti-Israelism with anti-Semitism is completely unacceptable, because, they contend, the use of the IHRA definition “threatens to silence legitimate criticism of Israel’s grave violations of international law and denial of Palestinian human and political rights.”
Only in the inverted reality of academia could a group of Jewish professors denounce a tool which has as its core purpose to identify and define current-day instances of anti-Semitism, preferring, instead, to stand in solidarity with Israel’s ideological enemies, the same individuals who are largely responsible for the present tsunami of Jew-hatred or campuses, disguised as “criticism of Israel.” In fact, as supporters of the IHRA definition have urged universities to adopt it, the very people who object to its use are the ones complicit in propagating the bigotry it was created to address.
Why should professors, and especially Jewish professors, care more about supporting the right of pro-Palestinians to voice their loathsome views concerning Zionism, Israel, and Jewish self-determination and the people—including non-Jews–who support them than they do about protecting Jewish students and faculty from anti-Semitic bigotry that frequently intrudes on the periphery of the Israel/Palestinian debate?
What would make them wish to proudly stand in solidarity with the ideological and existential enemies of the Jewish state and protect their supposed right to freely spew forth libels, slanders, and lies about Israel in an incessant, singularly-focused campaign that holds Israel to a double standard when judging other nations and omits comparable critiquing of any other nation on earth—both instances that the IHRA definition suggests can be n example of anti-Semitism.
What is so noble and virtuous about Palestinian self-determination that would compel these Jewish professors to want to protect its articulation more than they wish to suppress anti-Semitism?
Is it the genocidal charter of Hamas, the Palestinian leadership in Gaza, which is committed to the murder of Jews everywhere, not just in Israel, and are theologically and ideologically committed to the destruction of the Jewish state?
Could it be the stellar leadership of Fatah by the so-called moderate Mahmoud Abbas, someone who is furious when Jews “defile” the Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest site, with “their filthy feet” or publicly announces that not one Jew will be allowed to live in a new Palestinian state—a salient example of the apartheid that Israel is always falsely accused of committing against the Palestinian Arabs?.
Do those standing in solidarity with the Palestinians do so because of the peculiar culture of death in which martyrdom is celebrated for those who immolate themselves in an attempt to murder Jews and who have a grotesque “pay to slay” program that pays hundreds of millions of dollars in bounties to terrorists and their families for having successfully killed Israeli civilians?
Or does this fervent support come from an admiration of the campus version of being pro-Palestinian which is comprised almost exclusively of a campaign to denounce and decry every aspect of Israel’s existence, using a visceral hatred in a narrative of lies and contortions of history in prolonged hate-fests like “Israeli Apartheid Week,” Holocaust in the Holy Land,” “Israel: The Fourth Reich” and other venomous events designed to malign Israel and reduce its support in the community of nations?
Is this the cause to which these professors lend their vigorous support? Would they as energetically support the free speech rights of a white power group on campus? Would they fret so excessively if the speech was “chilled” of an anti-Muslim, anti-gay, anti-Hispanic organization that maligned its targets of hate with the same passion and vituperation endemic to the anti-Israel campaign that these professors facilitate and with which they are complicit?
Of course not. No such groups would even be allowed to organize and campaign on any university campus in the United States in the first place, and these woke professors would not step over each other to defend the odious ideology of these groups, though they seem oblivious to the fact that they are helping to insulate the poisonous pro-Palestinian campaign on campuses by resisting the use of a tool—the IHRA definition—that will help administrators and others clearly identify those instances when anti-Israel activism crosses the line into anti-Semitism.
These professors, like many on the Left, never see their own role in perpetuating anti-Semitism as part of the anti-Israel campaign, pointing to other sources of anti-Jewish bigotry as a way of deflecting their own complicity. “The IHRA working definition distracts from experiences of anti-Jewish racism,” the JFN statement claimed, suggesting that the real instances of anti-Semitism emanate from white supremacy, an accusation that became ubiquitous after the election of Donald Trump as part of the mendacious narrative that he emboldened white supremacists and fascists and that within their ranks lay the most troubling sources of anti-Semitism.
But that is precisely why the IHRA definition dwells disproportionately on items involving Israel: because contemporary cases of anti-Semitism most frequently occur and manifest themselves in the debate around Israel and the Palestinians. Critics of the IHRA have been adamant, of course, in their belief that anti-Zionism is completely disconnected from anti-Semitism, and that even venomous, vile, and out of proportion criticism of Israel is never, never an example of anti-Semitism, even though the IHRA definition has determined that, in some contexts, it often is. It is obvious why anti-Semites, and those who apologize for or are complicit in this bigotry, would seek to ignore a definition of anti-Semitism that calls reveals them as being anti-Semitic, exactly why the JFN and other groups and individuals have ignored the IHRA tool.
Anti-Semites do not get to decide what is, and is not, anti-Semitic. The JFN statement cautioned that the IHRA definition “threatens to silence legitimate criticism of Israel’s grave violations of international law and denial of Palestinian human and political rights,” but, again, anti-Semites do not get to define what is “legitimate criticism of Israel” and what is part of a campaign to demonize Jewish self-determination by maligning Zionism, accusing Israel of being a racist endeavor, and of being singularly responsible for all the ills that have befallen the Palestinians, an incantation of the Third Reich, and an obstacle to peace throughout the Middle East.
JFN members also exhibit a paranoia about their ability in the future to continue their abhorrent campaign to defame Israel, suggesting that the IHRA definition will “chill” free speech, suppress academic freedom, and stifle research and scholarly debate. How would that happen? “On campuses where this definition has been adopted,” the JFN statement claimed, “it has been used to intimidate and silence the work of unions, student groups, academic departments and faculty associations that are committed to freedom, equality and justice for Palestinians.” Intimidated and silenced? The blatancy of pro-Palestinian activism on university campuses is so visible and ever-present, and so radical and venomous, no one could reasonably claim that any anti-Israel activists are being silenced or intimated, just as this group of morally-challenged professors feels perfectly comfortable with denouncing a tool to curb anti-Semitism on behalf of the genocidally-inspired pro-Palestinian movement.
And the adoption of the IHRA definition does not mean that anti-Semites will have to cease articulating their bigotry, anyway; it will just mean that their expression and behavior can and will be called anti-Semitic if and when it is. A normal person would not have any problem that happening; someone more concerned with virtue-signaling how tolerant and compassionate they are for the every-victimized Palestinians, of course, would.
And there is another, more psychologically interesting aspect to a group of Jewish professors opposing a tool that attempts to protect Jewish students and others from the pernicious effects of anti-Semitism, an aspect that Harvard’s insightful Ruth Wisse dealt with in her book, If I Am Not For Myself: The Liberal Betrayal of the Jews: the professors attacked the IHRA definition specifically because it deals with Israel, and how academia reacts to the debate about the Jewish state and its surrounding Arab neighbors. Rather than confront the lies and distortions promulgated by the Arab world against Israel over its alleged racism, apartheid, settlements, and lack of a just solution to the so-called occupation, anti-Israel liberal Jews completely accept the spurious new narrative of Israel being the sole villain, and, in fact, often abet it with their own condemnations of the Jewish state.
For Wisse, this behavior could “more accurately be described as the desire to disassociate oneself from a people under attack by advertising one’s own goodness,” a psychological pattern that has manifested itself conspicuously on campuses and seems to be at play in the current instance with the Jewish Faculty Network. So worried are these professors that by accepting the use of a working definition of anti-Semitism they will somehow be seen to be complicit in defending Israel, they would rather denounce the definition and expose Jewish students to potential harm than stand up for principles that might tarnish their liberal credentials.
It is easy to demonize Israel and critique its strategy and politics, and certainly it requires no bravery in academia, where moral narcissists console each other in an echo chamber of good intentions, willing to sacrifice academic integrity, true scholarship, and the safety and viability of the Jewish state in the process.
Family reunited seven decades after the Holocaust
Their mother had never stopped searching for her lost baby; her other daughters found her family after undergoing genetic testing.
By Batya Jerenberg, World Israel News
Thanks to genetic testing, a Jewish family was reunited last month in a tearful reunion seven decades after the Holocaust had torn an eldest daughter away from her mother, never to be seen again.
Dora Rapaport had been sent to Auschwitz with her two-year-old, Eva, where they were separated, and all trace of her was lost. Dora, who survived the infamous Nazi death camp, met her husband, Lewis in a Displaced Persons camp after the war and moved to Cleveland, Ohio, but never stopped looking for her first-born, even after having two more daughters and a son.
Dena Morris, 72, and Jean Gearhart, 74, grew up feeling the tragic story intimately, as their mother, who could also be lots of fun and “sparkly,” sometimes stayed in bed crying for the day while clutching the only picture she had of Eva as a baby in her arms. She also left home for Europe several times to go searching for Eva in orphanages, and spent much time writing letters to organizations such as the Red Cross in her desperate need to find her daughter.
Before she passed away in 1996 from a brain tumor, Dora asked her daughters to continue the search. Although the sisters had long concluded that Eva must have been murdered along with the other 1.5 million child victims of the Holocaust, they honored their mother’s wish, but came up empty as well. Last year, however, they turned to MyHeritage, a genealogy platform that has a genetic testing service – and struck gold.
They received an email in April 2020 saying that they probably had a niece, living in England by the name of Claire Reay. Reay received an email too, telling of her two aunts in the USA. She was stunned, as all her mother knew of her own history was that she had been separated from her mother during the Holocaust. While she wanted to learn of her past, all her searches came to naught because she did not even know her birth date or real name, just that she was called Chava in Hebrew and later, Evelyn in English.
Reay knew that her mother had somehow reached Palestine after World War II and was adopted as a young child by a Belgian family, who moved to England after several years. Evelyn married and raised Reay and her three siblings, always believing her immediate family must have perished during the war. She passed away in 2014 of pancreatic cancer.
Any doubts about the testing results disappeared after the American and British sides exchanged pictures, as Dora and Evelyn looked remarkably alike. The numerous phone calls that followed confirmed that the mother and daughter shared many personality traits as well.
“Everything about them was almost identical,” Morris said in a Thursday article in the Washington Post. “It was breathtaking.”
COVID restrictions then kept the families physically apart, although all the siblings and their children on both ends used Zoom to start to get to know each other. With the help of her children and MyHeritage staff, Reay and her husband finally managed to get to Ohio on November 13 to surprise her aunts. When she knocked on Gearhart’s door, “They were totally stunned, which is what I wanted,” Reay said. The three women hugged and cried, and laughed through their tears.
While being “incredibly bittersweet” since it would have made her mother so happy to find her sisters, Reay said it was, “one of the highlights of my life.” Morris agreed, saying, “It was the most amazing thing that has ever happened to me.”
“The Holocaust is considered a black hole for many when it comes to researching their family history,” said Nitay Elboym, a researcher at MyHeritage, who helped the family find out more details about Evelyn’s early life. “Stories like these are why we do what we do.”
Hamas spies in Israel nabbed by security agency
Two men, one an Arab Israeli and the other from Gaza, were caught passing sensitive military information onto Hamas, according to the Shin Bet.
By World Israel News Staff
Two Hamas spies, one an Israeli citizen of Arab descent and the other a resident of the Gaza Strip, were caught in Israeli territory by Israel’s Shin Bet security agency and the Israeli police, according to a joint statement from the authorities on Thursday.
“The Shin Bet takes very seriously any direction of terrorist and espionage activity from the Gaza Strip and will continue to work together with Israel Police and the IDF in order to detect and thwart any hostile activity by these organizations in advance,” said the agency in a statement.
Hussein Biari, an Israeli citizen with close family ties to Gaza, and Gazan Mahmoud Ahmad, who held a trade permit allowing him to travel into Israel, were arrested in late November.
The media gag order on their case was lifted on Thursday morning.
The pair reportedly engaged in intelligence gathering missions throughout the Jewish State on behalf of Hamas, photographing and obtaining sensitive information about military bases, IDF soldiers, and Iron Dome battery locations.
Muhammad Khalawa, a leading figure in Hamas, was the handler directing their missions.
Biari and Ahmad reportedly met with Khalawa and other Hamas officials in Gaza to receive training, additional missions, and relay the intelligence they had gathered.
The Shin Bet said that Hamas is leveraging Gazans with border crossing permits and Israeli Arabs with ties to the Strip to further their goals, endangering families and civilians on both sides of the conflict.
The two suspects were formally indicted in Israeli court on Thursday, on security related counts that could land them decades in prison.
Since 2016, all four launch attempts by the Simorgh rocket have failed to put an Iranian satellite into orbit. Some experts believe that Iran’s engineers may have since mastered missile stage separation and are using both liquid and solid propellants. DEBKAfile’s military sources say that if the Iranians can pull off a successful space launch this time, that assessment would be confirmed. It would also indicate that Iran may be closer than believed to the ability to mount a nuclear warhead atop an ICBM missile with a range of 2,000km. US and Israeli intelligence sources’ estimate hitherto is that the Iranians were at least two years away from developing the necessary technology for this critical stage in weaponizing its nuclear program.
According to Iranian sources, the space satellite is to be launched again by the Simorgh rocket, which has a range of 4,000km, from the Imam Khomeini Spaceport. This underground site is located outside the town of Katamaran in Kermanshah province and near Haj Abad in the province of Hormozagan. Haj Abbad (see photo) was Iran’s first missile base and is now set aside for solid-fuel ballistic missiles.
As to Tehran’s escalating threats, on Saturday, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) launched 110 new assault speedboats from the port of Bandar Abbas. This was the seventh supplement of new missiles boats for the corps’ fleet this year, as commander Gen. Hossein Salami told the ceremony. He added that were it not for the IRGC’s might in the Gulf region, “the Muslim countries in the region would have been dominated and destroyed by enemies.”
The new air force chief’s appointment may have surprised Tehran as it ponders a possible Israeli military assault on its nuclear program. The post was widely expected to go to Maj. Gen. Tal Kalman, head of the IDF’s Iran Command and former head of its Strategic Division and the Air Force staff. His views were made known last March when he was quoted as saying: “Iran is not a specific operational challenge; it belongs to the floor above the military, as a challenge to our national security perception.” Kalman added: “Our discourse on Iran has in recent years been tinged with some cynicism because it is often entangled in other issues, but I truly believe that the challenge is posed by a state with the potential of a leading regional power.”
His boss, Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Aviv Kohavi, has said quite bluntly that diplomacy to curb Iran’s nuclear goals is a waste of time. He chose Gen. Bar as the next IAF chief because of their shared military doctrine, which is built around the massive deployment on the battlefield of manpower and fire power, combined with advanced technology and cyberwar. While Gen. Kalman is one of the country’s leading strategic thinkers. Gen. Bar is more an operations man. He also made his views on Iran known last December:
“The IDF must function in several levels to deal a powerful multi-dimensional blow for eradicating pinpointed Iran’s capabilities. Spearheaded by air strikes, it must use powerful, high precision bombs, cyber, and electronic warfare for operations on land and sea.” Gen. Bar went on to explain: “This operation we conceive as being preceded by actions to disable Iran’s communications system and crash its computers, so that the main force of the blow finds Iran’s fighting spirit at a low pitch.”
The new air force chief stressed that this was not a fictional scenario, but a real, synchronized and coordinated plan of action that it was incumbent on the entire military to prepare for. This plan is not new. It is the essence of the ideas Chief of Staff Gen. Kohavi has promoted since 2004, 17 years ago, when the Iranian command was first created. Since then, it has gathered dust in General Staff drawers along with rolled up maps, except for a lone voice which a year later, urged Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear program.
In 2005, Air Force Chief, Maj. Gen (res.) Herzl Budinger, declared that the time was now right for attacking Ian’s nuclear program. So long as the facilities were still concentrated above ground, the “could and should be destroyed,” he said.
Budinger argued that the world would not be able to stop Iran with sanctions. This was a decade before six world powers signed their nuclear accord with Iran. But the prime ministers of the day Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert dismissed Budinger’s prophetic words, including his warning that once Iran had the bomb, “we will be in a completely different situation…”
Budinger also said that, while we are grateful for US assistance and support, yet in the final reckoning, “you stand alone and control your own fate.” He warned: “If we are attacked, the missiles will fall on us, and even if the Americans attack, the missiles will also drop on us.”
Another of Budinger’s assessments remains relevant to this day: “The US military chief says that Israel lacks the capacity to destroy Iran’s capabilities on its own, but I think that he is not entirely aware of what Israeli forces are capable of. The Americans don’t know everything about us.”
DEBKAfile concludes: For the first time, three top IDF generals are lined up in favor of attacking Iran’s nuclear program: The Chief of Staff, the Air Force chief and the head of the Iran Command. The order for them to go ahead must come from the government and its head Naftali Bennett. In his UN speech on Monday, the prime minister sounded willing to give the order. Was he serious? And if so, can he pull along behind him a government that represents so many widely divergent views?
The prime minister stressed that Iranian terror is not confined to Israel and pointed to its setting up of a kamikaze drone unit of UAVs packed with explosives, wide-ranging and capable of hitting multiple targets. And not just in Israel. Dubbed Shehad-136, this deadly weapon has already been wielded against Saudi Arabia, US targets in Iraq, and commercial vessels at sea. Tehran plans to equip its proxies in Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon with hundreds and later thousands of these killer-drones, “In our experience, what starts in the Middle East doesn’t end there,” Bennett noted.
Iran has spent the last years in a leap forward in nuclear research and development, production and enrichment and reached a critical moment. “It has breached every red line. Wishful thinking has proved false,” said Bennett.
“Iran has violated its contract with the IAEA and is getting away with it; harassing the UN inspectors and sabotaging their efforts, without being punished They have raised uranium enrichment to 60pc purity, a short step before weapons grade, with paying any price.,” he said. “There are people who have decided that Iran’s drive for a nuke is unstoppable, or they may be fed up with hearing about it. Israel doesn’t have that privilege. We will not tire and will not let Iran have a nuclear weapon.,” the prime minister stressed.
Η βασίλισσα Ελισάβετ ακύρωσε το οικογενειακό γεύμα πριν τα Χριστούγεννα.
Το οικογενειακό τραπέζει ακυρώθηκε για «προληπτικούς λόγους».
Η βασίλισσα Ελισάβετ ακύρωσε ένα οικογενειακό τραπέζι πριν από τα Χριστούγεννα, ανακοίνωσε πηγή των Ανακτόρων του Μπάκιγχαμ.
«Το οικογενειακό τραπέζι πριν από τα Χριστούγεννα δεν θα πραγματοποιηθεί. Η απόφαση αυτή είναι προληπτική καθώς υπάρχει η αίσθηση ότι αν πραγματοποιηθεί θα θέσει σε κίνδυνο τα σχέδια υπερβολικά πολλών ανθρώπων για τις γιορτές», πρόσθεσε.
Young American Jews hiding their Jewishness in fear
Antisemitism on campus is leading many students to hide their identities, said a Jewish agency official who is backed by a recent survey on the issue.
By Batya Jerenberg, World Israel News
American Jewish youth are hiding their Jewishness out of fear of antisemitism, said a Jewish Agency official in an interview aired Tuesday on Arutz 7.
There is both fear of antisemitism and concern about being linked to Israel, “especially among the young generation,” said Sigal Kanotofsky, the quasi-governmental organization’s representative to the American northeast. “If there is this anti-Israelism in the North American public, then the youth, especially those in universities, want to hide their Jewish identity because it’s a barrier in some ways. And how is this happening in North America, the place where it’s safest to be a Jew? But it’s also happening here.”
A good part of her work is to advise organized Jewry’s representatives on how to fight the “wave of antisemitism that [Jews] experience here in universities, in schools and on the street,” she said.
In September, a survey done in April of thousands of members of Jewish sororities and fraternities revealed that about half of them have hidden their identities at least once when on campus. The Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law poll also found that 65% had “felt unsafe,” with a whopping 69% of those belonging to Jewish sorority Alpha Epsilon Phi having personally experienced an antisemitic verbal attack.
These most often included offensive remarks about Jews and the Holocaust and accusing them of being complicit in alleged crimes committed by Israel. Over 50% have stopped themselves from giving their opinions on Israel, although colleges are ostensibly the foremost arena for the free exchange of ideas and beliefs.
Seniors are more likely than the freshman class to hide their Jewishness. This seemingly indicates that their experiences over the last four years has taught them that it would not be a good idea to express their religious or ethnic identity.
This accords with a smaller survey of several hundred enrolled students and college alumni released in August by Alums for Campus Fairness. Fully 95 percent of the respondents said that antisemitism was a problem on their current or former campus, with three-fourths characterizing it as a “very serious” problem. Just under 70% reported that they avoided certain places, situations, and events for fear of being outed as a Jew, while even more had experienced or heard first-hand accounts of antisemitic hate speech.