Gallup Poll Reveals Majority of Democrats Hold Anti-Israel Views for the First Time in History
Edited by: Fern Sidman
A stunning new Gallup poll has revealed that more than half of Democrats now hold an unfavorable view of Israel, marking a historic shift in public opinion. According to a recently published report in The New York Post, the poll found that only 33% of Democrats expressed a favorable opinion of Israel, while a staggering 60% viewed the Jewish state unfavorably—a record-breaking figure since Gallup first began tracking this sentiment in 1989.
The data marks a significant political divide, as The New York Post reported that Republican support for Israel remains overwhelmingly strong. 83% of Republicans surveyed held a favorable view of Israel, with just 13% unfavorable and 4% undecided. The partisan gap—now a massive 50 points—is the largest ever recorded, according to Gallup.
“This year marks the first time any party group has had majority-level unfavorable ratings of Israel, with 60% of Democrats expressing that view,” Gallup stated, as cited by The New York Post.
Beyond party divisions, The New York Post reported that overall American support for Israel has reached its lowest point since 2000. The poll found that 54% of Americans now hold a favorable view of Israel, while 41% view it unfavorably.
One of the most striking findings in the survey, according to The New York Post, is the hostility among younger Americans. Among those aged 18 to 34, 56% have an unfavorable view of Israel, compared to just 38% who hold a favorable opinion. This generational divide suggests that younger voters—who are shaping the future of American politics—are increasingly critical of the Jewish state.
The dramatic drop in Democratic support for Israel comes amid the ongoing Israel-Hamas war, which began following the October 7, 2023 terrorist attack by Hamas. The New York Post report noted that the war has exacerbated political tensions, fueling a wave of anti-Israel protests, campus takeovers, and anti-Semitic incidents across the United States.
As The New York Post reported, anti-Israel activism on college campuses has intensified, with some demonstrations turning violent. Protesters have engaged in vandalism, stormed university buildings, and, in the most extreme cases, physically attacked individuals, including an incident at Barnard College on Wednesday, where a mob of masked demonstrators assaulted a security officer.
The surge in anti-Israel sentiment among Democrats, as analyzed by Gallup and cited by The New York Post, likely reflects opposition to Israel’s military actions in Gaza. Gallup also suggests that Democratic disapproval of Israel could be partially attributed to former President Trump’s strong pro-Israel stance, including his recent White House meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The New York Post report shed light on the historic nature of the current political divide over Israel. Gallup’s analysis shows that the gap between Republican and Democratic support for Israel has widened dramatically. While Republicans have consistently viewed Israel favorably for decades, Democratic support has now plummeted to unprecedented levels.
Gallup noted that the 50-point partisan divide in Israel’s favorability ratings is nearly three times larger than the 18-point gap that existed between Republicans and Democrats between 2001 and 2023. The prior record for a partisan gap was a 30-point difference, recorded just last year—making this year’s jump a striking shift in American public opinion.
Independent voters are divided on the issue. According to the poll, 48% of independents hold a favorable opinion of Israel, while 44% view it unfavorably. The New York Post reported that these numbers suggest that while independent voters remain split, the overall trend is moving toward greater skepticism of Israel, especially among younger demographics.
The poll also measured American views of other countries, revealing sharp partisan differences in how Democrats and Republicans perceive foreign nations. The New York Post reports that 83% of Democrats view Mexico favorably, compared to only 47% of Republicans. In addition, 84% of Democrats hold a positive view of Ukraine, while just 54% of Republicans do.
These findings indicate that Democrats and Republicans are increasingly at odds not only over Israel but also over America’s relationships with other key allies and global partners.
The report also highlighted the implications of this major shift in public opinion, particularly as it relates to U.S. foreign policy and future elections. With Democratic disapproval of Israel at an all-time high, the once bipartisan support for the Jewish state is rapidly eroding—a trend that could reshape American diplomatic strategy and electoral politics.
The Gallup poll, conducted from February 3 to 16, surveyed 775 Americans and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points, according to The New York Post.
As Democratic opposition to Israel intensifies, the political debate surrounding U.S.-Israel relations is becoming more polarizing than ever before. Whether this anti-Israel sentiment will continue to grow—or if support for the Jewish state will rebound—remains an open question. But one thing is clear: the deep partisan divide over Israel is now an undeniable reality in American politics.
Advocates Urge Trump Admin to Defund Columbia U & Barnard College Over Anti-Semitic Campus Atmosphere
Edited by: Fern Sidman
Amid escalating concerns over Jewish students’ safety on college campuses, advocates are calling on President Trump’s administration to cut federal funding to Columbia University and Barnard College, The New York Post reported on Friday. The demand follows a surge in anti-Israel demonstrations, including disruptive and violent campus protests, which critics argue have created an environment of hostility and intimidation.
According to the information provided in The New York Post report, the advocacy group StopAntisemitism is leading the charge, urging the Justice Department to take immediate action to prevent future campus disruptions. In a letter addressed to Leo Terrell, head of Trump’s newly formed task force to combat anti-Semitism, the group accused Columbia’s leadership of failing to protect Jewish students, faculty, and staff. “The university administration has completely failed to protect Jewish and Israeli students, faculty, and staff, allowing a hostile and dangerous environment to fester unchecked,” wrote Liora Rez, the executive director of StopAntisemitism, in the letter cited by The New York Post.
The financial stakes are significant. Columbia University received approximately $1.3 billion in federal grants in 2024 alone, amounting to 20% of its operating budget, according to figures reported by The Columbia Daily Spectator and highlighted in the report in The New York Post. Advocates are now pushing for those funds to be revoked, arguing that federal money should not be used to sustain an institution that has failed to ensure a safe learning environment for Jewish students.
Beyond defunding Columbia and Barnard, the letter—cited by The New York Post—also calls on the Justice Department to revoke student visas and deport foreign students involved in violent campus protests. It demands that school administrators be held accountable for enabling what StopAntisemitism describes as “lawlessness” on campus.
The New York Post report detailed one of the most recent flashpoints of unrest, which occurred on Wednesday at Barnard’s Milbank Hall. The event, organized by the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), quickly turned violent when a school security guard was assaulted. The New York Post reports that this chaos was sparked by the university’s decision to expel two masked students who, in January, had stormed a Columbia class on modern Israel and scattered anti-Semitic leaflets. The disciplinary action against these students prompted an angry response from anti-Israel activists, who viewed their expulsion as an attack on free speech.
By Thursday afternoon, The New York Post reported that protests had reignited, with approximately 100 anti-Israel demonstrators gathering outside Barnard’s entrance. The protestors—many of them masked and wearing keffiyehs—chanted “free Palestine” and the incendiary slogan “one solution, intifada revolution”, an apparent reference to violent uprisings against Israel. They also directly confronted the college, chanting, “your hands are dirty” and accusing Barnard of supporting genocide for its ties to Israel.
As anti-Israel demonstrators escalated their rhetoric, a group of Jewish students gathered in counter-protest, proudly waving Israeli flags. The New York Post reported that among them was Joshua Shain, a 21-year-old Columbia junior, who expressed deep concern over the protest’s tone and messaging.
Speaking to The New York Post, Shain described the disturbing nature of the chants. “I think it’s absolutely horrifying. They are chanting in Arabic, ‘from water to water Palestine will be Arab.’ They are not calling for peace and compassion and human rights. They are calling for violence,” he said.
Shain further argued that these protests were fundamentally at odds with Columbia’s values and the principles of American democracy. “These are not the values of the great institution of Columbia. These are not American values,” he told The New York Post.
While Shain acknowledged that Columbia’s administration had responded to the protests more decisively than in previous years, he emphasized that more action is needed to ensure the safety of Jewish students. The New York Post report underscored this point by noting that Columbia has been the site of multiple high-profile anti-Semitic incidents, with Jewish students increasingly reporting fear and harassment on campus.
With university administrators struggling to maintain order, students and parents are demanding answers about where their tuition and tax dollars are going if not toward ensuring a secure learning environment.
“We’re paying all this money in tuition, not to mention the federal and city taxes. The college and the city are supposed to make sure that everyone is safe. Where is that money going?” one concerned student asked in an interview with The New York Post. The student expressed deep frustration over the administration’s inaction following a brutal attack that left a security officer hospitalized. “They [protesters] put a man in the hospital for trying to keep order. What is being done?” he asked.
Echoing the sentiment, Jewish students at Barnard have described an increasingly hostile campus climate, where openly expressing their faith has become a source of anxiety and fear. Barnard freshman Eliana Birman, who previously wore her Star of David necklace and dog tags with pride, told The New York Post that the unrest has forced her to reconsider even these simple expressions of identity.
“I used to walk around campus with my head held high,” she said. “But now I feel very anxious about such harmless displays.” Birman lamented the erosion of open dialogue on campus, stating that what once attracted her to Barnard—the willingness of students to engage in robust discussions—has now devolved into a climate of fear.
“I came to Barnard because everyone has such strong opinions and everyone feels comfortable using their voice,” she told The New York Post. “But it’s gotten to a point where people are scared to speak up, and people have to hide what they think, what they feel, and who they are for the sake of being safe.”
The violence reached a dangerous peak during the protests at Milbank Hall on Wednesday, where demonstrators—led by the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP)—forcefully stormed the historic academic building. Law enforcement sources told The New York Post that approximately 20 students pushed a 41-year-old campus security officer to the ground as they barged inside.
The Transport Workers Union (TWU), which represents the injured security officer, described the assault as brutal and deliberate. The union’s leadership stated that the officer was “pinned” against a beam by the crowd before being slammed into “like a linebacker” by a particularly aggressive protester.
“In the eyes of some of these trust-fund baby ideologues, harming the blue-collar TWU workforce at Barnard is seen as acceptable collateral damage in their quest to advance their political cause,” TWU International President John Samuelsen said in a statement to The New York Post. He called for criminal charges against the perpetrators, urging authorities to investigate the incident and hold those responsible accountable.
The injured officer was transported to Mount Sinai Morningside hospital, where he was treated for chest pains following the attack, The New York Post report said.
Despite the violent outburst, demonstrators refused to back down. Their list of demands, as reported by The New York Post, included reinstatement of the two students expelled for disrupting a Columbia class on modern Israel, amnesty for protesters involved in last summer’s widespread campus demonstrations and an end to disciplinary measures for students engaging in anti-Israel activism.
However, Barnard College officials did not yield to the pressure. In a statement to The New York Post, Robin Levine, Barnard’s vice president for strategic communications, confirmed that no “amnesty” had been promised and that the college had not negotiated any concessions with the protesters.
“The masked protesters left Milbank Hall after receiving final written notice and being informed that Barnard would be forced to consider additional necessary measures to protect the campus if they did not leave on their own,” Levine stated.
The demonstrators, according to the information provided in The New York Post report, eventually vacated Milbank Hall by 10:40 p.m. Wednesday, only to regroup and march to Riverside Park. By Thursday, they had returned to Barnard’s front gates, continuing their highly charged protests against the administration.
Chants of “Free Palestine” and “One solution, intifada revolution” rang through the air as masked activists rallied outside the elite women’s college. The New York Post report noted that many of the same individuals involved in the previous night’s violence were present, now directing their anger toward the school’s leadership.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), an organization dedicated to protecting free speech on college campuses, weighed in on the chaos at Barnard, making it clear that the Milbank takeover could not be considered a “peaceful protest”.
“What happened at Barnard last night was, by all accounts, not peaceful protest,” FIRE Vice President Alex Morey said in a statement to The New York Post. “Campuses need to draw a hard line: full support for peaceful student protest on even the most divisive political issues, and zero tolerance for misconduct, violence, or criminality.”
FIRE further criticized Barnard’s administration for failing to establish clear boundaries. “The buck stops with administrators,” Morey continued. “Barnard needs to educate students on these basic distinctions and be clear-eyed when it’s time to enforce rules that keep speakers safe on campus.”
Despite the escalating tensions and widespread criticism over its handling of campus security, Columbia University and Barnard College have not responded to multiple requests for comment, The New York Post reported.
In a recent development it was reported on Friday that the Federal Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism announced that it will be visiting 10 university campuses that have experienced anti-Semitic incidents since October 2023. Created pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Order on Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism, the Task Force set as its first priority to eradicate anti-Semitic harassment in schools and on college campuses.
Leading Task Force member and Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Leo Terrell informed the 10 universities yesterday that the Task Force was aware of allegations that the schools may have failed to protect Jewish students and faculty members from unlawful discrimination, in potential violation of federal law. Terrell said he intends for the Task Force to meet with university leadership, impacted students and staff, local law enforcement, and community members as it gathers information about these incidents and considers whether remedial action is warranted.
“The President, Attorney General Pamela Bondi, and the entire Administration are committed to ensuring that no one should feel unsafe or unwelcome on campus because of their religion,” said Terrell. “The Task Force’s mandate is to bring the full force of the federal government to bear in our effort to eradicate Anti-Semitism, particularly in schools. These visits are just one of many steps this Administration is taking to deliver on that commitment.”
The 10 universities identified by the Task Force are: Columbia University; George Washington University; Harvard University; Johns Hopkins University; New York University; Northwestern University; the University of California, Los Angeles; the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Minnesota; and the University of Southern California.
AP Photo/Evgeniy Maloletka A Ukrainian serviceman with the Azov brigade carries a 155mm artillery shell to a self-propelled howitzer before firing toward Russian front-line positions in Ukraine’s Donetsk region on Thursday, Jan. 23.
Ukraine’s Contentious Relationship with Israel: UN Votes, Nazi Legacy, and the Proliferation of Anti-Semitism
By: Fern Sidman
Ukraine’s relationship with Israel and its Jewish community has been fraught with complexities, shaped by geopolitical considerations, historical tensions, and controversial domestic policies. While Ukraine and Israel have cooperated on various issues, significant points of contention remain, particularly in Ukraine’s voting record at the United Nations, its glorification of Nazi war criminals, and its inconsistent response to the rise of anti-Semitism within its borders.
Ukraine’s Voting Record on Israel at the United Nations
For years, Ukraine has consistently supported resolutions critical of Israel at the United Nations, aligning itself with broader European and UN General Assembly trends that often single out the Jewish state for condemnation. According to data from UN Watch, between 2015 and the present, Ukraine voted against Israel in approximately 75% of relevant resolutions, abstained in 25%, and did not vote in favor of Israel in any instance.
This trend has not gone unnoticed by Israeli officials. In 2023, Israel’s Ambassador to Ukraine, Michael Brodsky, highlighted that Ukraine supported anti-Israel resolutions at the UN “in 90% of cases,” raising concerns that such a stance could negatively impact bilateral relations. Despite Ukraine’s need for diplomatic and military support from Israel, particularly following Russia’s 2022 invasion, its consistent voting record against Israel has strained ties between the two countries.
Glorification of Nazi Collaborators and Protection of War Criminals
One of the most contentious aspects of Ukraine’s historical narrative is its rehabilitation and glorification of figures linked to Nazi war crimes. While Ukraine suffered immensely under both Soviet and Nazi occupations, some Ukrainian nationalist groups collaborated with Nazi forces, seeing them as liberators from Soviet rule. These groups, particularly the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and its military wing, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), were responsible for atrocities against Jews and Poles during World War II.
In recent years, Ukraine has faced criticism for its state-sponsored rehabilitation of such figures. Streets, stadiums, and public squares have been named after Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych—leaders of the OUN who played roles in ethnic massacres and pogroms during the war. Bandera’s followers were complicit in the 1941 Lviv pogroms, in which thousands of Jews were murdered, and Shukhevych’s UPA was responsible for the mass killing of Jewish and Polish civilians.
Particularly alarming has been the annual marches in honor of the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician), a Ukrainian unit that served under Nazi command. These marches, held in cities such as Kyiv and Lviv, celebrate a division that pledged loyalty to Adolf Hitler and engaged in war crimes. Jewish organizations and international human rights groups have condemned these commemorations as historical revisionism and a dangerous glorification of Nazi collaborators.
Despite international pressure, Ukraine has done little to curtail these events. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, himself of Jewish heritage, has condemned the glorification of Nazi-linked figures in general terms but has not taken significant legal or political action to curb these nationalist commemorations. The continued state-sponsored recognition of these figures remains a serious point of contention, particularly for Israel and Jewish communities worldwide.
Ukraine’s Struggles with Contemporary Anti-Semitism
While Ukraine has taken some legislative steps to combat anti-Semitism, efforts to address the problem remain inconsistent. In 2021, the Ukrainian Parliament passed a bill defining anti-Semitism and establishing penalties for offenses related to it. The legislation officially recognized anti-Semitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which is expressed as hatred towards them,” and allowed victims to claim compensation for damages resulting from anti-Semitic acts.
However, despite these legal measures, anti-Semitic incidents continue to occur at concerning levels. Reports indicate that in 2020, there were 49 recorded anti-Semitic acts in Ukraine, including vandalism, public displays of anti-Semitic symbols, and hate speech. Jewish cemeteries and Holocaust memorials have repeatedly been desecrated, with little action taken against the perpetrators. Some Ukrainian officials and public figures have also made inflammatory remarks minimizing the Holocaust or downplaying Ukraine’s role in historical anti-Jewish violence.
Ukraine has made efforts to preserve the memory of Jewish communities lost in the Holocaust, such as commemorating Babyn Yar, where nearly 34,000 Jews were massacred in 1941. However, these efforts have often been marred by political disputes and a lack of sustained commitment. For instance, the Babyn Yar memorial project has faced opposition from Ukrainian nationalists who seek to downplay Ukrainian complicity in the massacre.
Furthermore, there is a worrying trend of Holocaust distortion in Ukrainian society. Some nationalist groups attempt to equate Soviet and Nazi crimes, arguing that Ukraine was merely a victim caught between two totalitarian regimes. This narrative, while not unique to Ukraine, often serves to whitewash the actions of Ukrainian collaborators who actively participated in the extermination of Jews.
What Will the Future Hold?
Ukraine’s relationship with Israel is deeply complicated by its UN voting record, its problematic historical commemorations, and its inconsistent approach to combating anti-Semitism. While Ukraine has sought closer ties with Israel, particularly in the wake of the Russian invasion, its continued diplomatic alignment with anti-Israel forces at the UN and its glorification of Nazi collaborators create significant tensions.
Ukraine’s efforts to combat anti-Semitism remain insufficient in light of its historical revisionism and the continued presence of nationalist factions that celebrate individuals with well-documented ties to Nazi war crimes. While Ukraine has taken some steps to honor the memory of Jewish Holocaust victims, its failure to fully confront its past and its tolerance of far-right extremism remain major concerns for Israel and the global Jewish community.
Trump and Vance Berate Zelensky in Unprecedented Oval Office Clash
Edited by: TJVNews.com
In an extraordinary and explosive confrontation, President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance publicly berated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office on Friday, marking one of the most dramatic diplomatic clashes between an American president and a foreign leader in modern times. As The New York Times reported, the heated exchange—broadcast live on television—underscored the growing rift between the United States and Ukraine under Trump’s leadership, with the U.S. president effectively pressuring Zelensky to accept a peace deal dictated by Washington.
Throughout the tense encounter, Trump and Vance accused Zelensky of lacking gratitude for U.S. military aid and strong-armed him into negotiations on American terms. The New York Times report highlighted that Trump issued an ultimatum, warning Zelensky that if he did not comply, the United States would withdraw support entirely. “You’re either going to make a deal or we’re out,” Trump declared. “And if we’re out, you’ll fight it out, and I don’t think it’s going to be pretty.”
The hostility toward Zelensky was on full display as Vice President Vance lectured the Ukrainian leader about his behavior, accusing him of being “disrespectful” for making his case for continued U.S. support in front of the press. The New York Times reported that Vance insisted Zelensky show deference to Trump, ordering him to express his gratitude for Trump’s leadership. The president then reminded Zelensky of Ukraine’s weak bargaining position, bluntly stating, “You’re not really in a good position right now.”
The spectacle was a radical departure from previous U.S.-Ukraine relations, where the Biden administration had strongly supported Ukraine’s sovereignty against Russian aggression. As The New York Times report pointed out, Trump’s behavior signals a dramatic shift in U.S. foreign policy, aligning more closely with Russian interests while putting unprecedented pressure on Kyiv to concede to Moscow’s demands.
Throughout the meeting, Trump continued to push a version of events regarding the origins of the war, blaming Ukraine for the conflict while downplaying Russia’s aggression. The New York Times report emphasized that Russia, not Ukraine, started the war—first in 2014, when it illegally annexed Crimea, and again in 2022 with its full-scale invasion. Despite these widely accepted facts, Trump repeatedly suggested that Ukraine was responsible for the hostilities and that Zelensky was being unreasonable in resisting a settlement.
Moreover, while Trump portrayed Zelensky as obstinate, The New York Times report noted that Ukraine is currently under martial law due to the war, which has led to a suspension of elections for the past three years—a necessary wartime measure, not evidence of dictatorship. In contrast, Russian President Vladimir Putin has maintained power allegedly through fraudulent elections and violent suppression of opposition, and he currently faces an international arrest warrant for war crimes.
While Trump aggressively criticized Zelensky, he continued to heap praise on Russian President Vladimir Putin, reinforcing his long-standing admiration for the Kremlin leader. The New York Times reported that just this week, Trump described Putin as “a very smart guy” and “a very cunning person.” Trump also suggested that Putin genuinely wanted peace, ignoring Russia’s repeated violations of international agreements and its continued aggression against Ukraine.
Despite mounting questions about his stance on Ukraine, Trump deflected concerns at a press conference on Thursday with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The New York Times reported that when asked whether he owed Zelensky an apology for previously calling him a dictator, Trump avoided answering directly, instead offering a vague reassurance: “We’re going to have a very good meeting. I have a lot of respect for him.” However, his words stood in sharp contrast to his on-camera rebuke of Zelensky the following day.
During the Thursday press conference with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Trump offered a mix of optimism and uncertainty about the prospects for peace. “I think it’s going to happen, hopefully quickly,” he said. “If it doesn’t happen quickly, it may not happen at all.” As The New York Times report noted, this fatalistic tone raises concerns about whether Trump has a real diplomatic strategy or if he is positioning himself to abandon Ukraine entirely should peace talks fail.
The public humiliation of Zelensky marks a new low in U.S.-Ukraine relations, with The New York Times report warning that Trump’s aggressive rhetoric and threats to cut support could embolden Russia. By openly siding with Putin’s framing of the war and seeking to impose a peace deal on Ukraine on Russian terms, Trump’s approach risks further destabilizing the region and sending a signal that the U.S. is no longer a reliable ally for Ukraine.
As The New York Times report highlighted, Trump’s behavior stands in stark contrast to his predecessor, who consistently supported Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression. The Oval Office clash, unprecedented in both tone and substance, demonstrates a radical realignment of American foreign policy—one that could have severe consequences for global security.
As Trump maintains his ambiguous approach to peace talks, European leaders are actively preparing for a post-war security arrangement in Ukraine. The New York Times reported that Prime Minister Starmer and other European leaders have offered to contribute troops to a multinational peacekeeping force once the fighting stops. However, Trump has refused to commit U.S. forces—even in a non-combat peacekeeping role—or to provide any clear security guarantees to Ukraine in the event of renewed Russian aggression.
This hesitancy starkly contrasts with past U.S. policy, where American leadership has been central to NATO’s defense posture in Europe. The New York Times report highlighted that Trump’s reluctance to back long-term security arrangements for Ukraine signals a radical departure from previous bipartisan support for Ukrainian sovereignty. It also raises concerns that, without firm American commitments, Russia could use any cease-fire as an opportunity to regroup and launch further offensives in the future.
While refusing to offer security guarantees, Trump has placed a new demand on Ukraine: handing over a significant portion of its natural resources as “payback” for past U.S. military aid. The New York Times report revealed that Trump has claimed that the U.S. has given $350 billion in assistance, while Europe has contributed only $100 billion. However, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, Europe’s actual contribution is $138 billion, compared to $119 billion from the United States.
Under a draft minerals agreement reviewed by The New York Times, Ukraine would be required to give up 50% of its future revenues from natural resource extraction—including critical minerals, oil, and gas—as part of Trump’s proposed deal. He described this arrangement as an economic development opportunity rather than a coerced concession, stating, “It’ll be good for both countries.”
This proposal has alarmed U.S. policymakers, as it would effectively force Ukraine to pay a ransom for military aid it has already received. The New York Times report underscored that such a deal would place Ukraine in an economically vulnerable position, making it even more dependent on outside powers in the aftermath of the war.
Trump’s handling of Ukraine is also exposing a widening rift within the Republican Party, as evidenced by the stark contrast between his meeting with Zelensky and the reception the Ukrainian leader received from U.S. lawmakers earlier the same day. The New York Times reported that Republican and Democratic senators met with Zelensky on Friday morning, with several posting smiling selfies and expressing strong support for continued U.S. aid. Many lawmakers even anticipated signing a minerals deal with Ukraine later in the day—a deal now overshadowed by Trump’s demand for Ukrainian resource concessions.
This public split highlights a fundamental divide in Washington over U.S. policy toward Ukraine. As The New York Times report noted, while Republican defense hawks remain committed to countering Russian aggression, Trump’s transactional approach—which demands payment from Ukraine while offering no military commitments—signals a sharp deviation from traditional Republican foreign policy.
Miriam Alster/Flash90Demonstration in Tel Aviv to demand the release of the Bibas family, hostages of Hamas, November 28, 2023
By Yaakov Katz (J-Post)
Israel is a special country. This was painfully clear on Wednesday when tens of thousands of people flooded the streets, united in grief, to accompany the funeral procession of the Bibas family – Shiri, the mother, and her two angelic, red-haired children, Ariel and Kfir.
In this moment of national tragedy, Israel showed once again how, in its darkest hours – and amid the most troubling of times and greatest trials and when our hearts are shattered – we come together. We stand as one; we stand united.
It was an example of the unique DNA that makes us Israeli. We fight; we argue. We passionately disagree about the future of this country. But we also understand a harsh reality – our enemies don’t care if we wear a kippah or not, whether that kippah is knitted or velvet, whether we served in the IDF or didn’t, or whether we vote Right or Left. To them, we are all the same.
The threats against us are immense. And as we’ve seen over the last 16 months – and even before that – when we willingly divide ourselves, we invite disaster. If we allow it, it will happen. If we don’t, it won’t. Sometimes it really is that simple.
The image of Shiri, wrapping her sons in a blanket, holding them close as they were torn away to Gaza and then murdered by Hamas terrorists, is etched in our national consciousness.
Shiri, Ariel and Kfir Bibas are abducted from Kibbutz Nir Oz on October 7, 2023. (credit: Screenshot from Hamas Telegram video/ Courtesy)
It is a symbol of the nightmare we have faced since that dark day. It is also a symbol of the catastrophic failure that occurred on October 7, and how we find ourselves still trapped in this painful reality – many months later, with more casualties, more suffering.
Their loss is a reminder of our pain – and it is also a reminder of the urgency to bring back the remaining hostages in Gaza. Time is not on their side, and if they are not returned soon, they could be lost forever.
(TJV) A leading contender in the New York City mayoral race has a long record of anti-Israel activism, raising concerns that the city’s historically strong support for the Jewish state could be at risk, The Algemeiner reports.
Zohran Mamdani, a member of the New York State Assembly and a candidate for mayor, has consistently placed opposition to Israel at the center of his political agenda. According to The Algemeiner, Mamdani, who identifies as a democratic socialist, has supported legislation targeting Israel and has described its military operations in Gaza as “genocide.”
A recent poll conducted by the Honan Strategy Group from Feb. 22-23 places Mamdani in second place with 12 percent of the vote, while former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo leads the race with 38 percent.
In 2021, Mamdani publicly endorsed the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to economically and diplomatically isolate Israel—a stance that has been widely criticized by pro-Israel advocates. He asserted on social media that support for BDS was growing in New York City, stating, “The tide is turning. The fight for justice is here. The moment is now.” That same year, Mamdani also called for barring New York lawmakers from visiting Israel, insisting that “every elected [official] must be pressured to stand with Palestinians,” The Algemeiner noted.
His opposition to Israel continued into 2023, when he introduced the “Not on our dime!: Ending New York Funding of Israeli Settler Violence Act.” The legislation aimed to block charities from using tax-deductible donations to support organizations in Judea and Samaria. Mamdani justified the measure by accusing Israel of “war crimes” against Palestinians and dismissed critics by claiming his proposal reflected the views of “most New Yorkers.”
Following the Hamas-led terror attacks on October 7, 2023—the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust—Mamdani issued a statement condemning “Netanyahu’s declaration of war” and warning that Israel would use the attack as an excuse to carry out a second “Nakba.” Days later, he escalated his criticism of Israel’s military response, asserting, “We are on the brink of a genocide of Palestinians in Gaza right now,” The Algemeiner reports.
In January 2024, Mamdani pushed for New York City to halt funding to Israel, claiming that “Voters oppose their tax dollars funding a genocide.”
As The Algemeiner has highlighted, Mamdani is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), a far-left organization that has long been critical of Israel. The DSA intensified its anti-Israel rhetoric during the ongoing war in Gaza, blaming Israel’s policies for Hamas’ October 7 attack and organizing protests in support of Palestine. In April 2024, the DSA’s international committee went as far as defending Iran’s “right to self-defense” against Israel.
The organization has also expressed support for Hamas, referring to it as a “resistance” movement rather than a terrorist group. In March 2024, the DSA criticized progressive Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez after she condemned Hamas, arguing that Palestinians have a “right to defend against occupation.”
With Mamdani’s rising political profile, The Algemeiner notes that his track record has heightened concerns within New York’s Jewish community, which fears that his election could shift the city’s traditionally strong alliance with Israel.
(TJV) Bronx Rep. Ritchie Torres is demanding Governor Kathy Hochul take action on banning public mask-wearing, accusing her of inaction as antisemitic protests escalate on college campuses. His call comes a day after a masked mob took over a Barnard College building, disrupting classes and allegedly assaulting a school employee.
In a letter obtained by The Post, Torres urged Hochul to push for the ban as part of the state budget, due by April 1. “Your lip service to a mask ban means nothing without legislation and executive orders that match words with deeds,” he wrote, accusing state officials of violating federal civil rights laws by failing to protect Jewish students.
New York previously had a mask ban, initially enacted to unmask Ku Klux Klan members but repealed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proponents argue reinstating it would prevent protesters from hiding their identities while committing harassment. A recent poll found 75% of New Yorkers support the measure, with 76% of Jewish voters expressing concerns over discrimination.
Hochul has voiced general support for restricting masks but has yet to endorse a specific policy. A bill under consideration would not impose an outright ban but would make “masked harassment” a low-level crime, with exemptions for medical and religious reasons.
Torres, a vocal critic of Hochul’s handling of antisemitism, is reportedly considering challenging her in next year’s gubernatorial race.
Israeli Military Commission Uncovers Intelligence Failures Leading to October 7 Hamas Attack
Edited by: Fern Sidman
In a sobering revelation, the first Israeli military commission investigating the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led assault has concluded that Israeli military officials were caught off guard due to a severe misjudgment of Hamas’s intentions and operational capabilities. According to a report that appeared on Thursday in The Wall Street Journal, the report details how Israeli intelligence failed to interpret a series of warning signs, allowing the deadliest attack in Israel’s history to unfold without an effective response.
Despite an array of indicators that a large-scale assault was imminent, Israeli officials dismissed Hamas’s movements as either routine military drills or small-scale cross-border raids. The Wall Street Journal reported that among the overlooked warnings was the activation of Israeli SIM cards by Hamas operatives and the militant group’s visible repositioning of forces at designated staging areas on the night of October 6. However, rather than treating these developments as signs of an impending attack, Israeli military and intelligence personnel misread them as defensive maneuvers or exercises, reinforcing an already flawed assessment that Hamas was not seeking open war.
This high-level investigation—the most comprehensive probe yet into the systemic failures that led to the massacre—has unveiled the extent of Israeli intelligence’s miscalculations. The Wall Street Journal report noted that intelligence officials disregarded existing documentation pointing to Hamas’s aggressive intentions and failed to recognize critical patterns in the group’s preparations. As a result, Israel was caught entirely unprepared for an attack that would not only claim the lives of 1,200 people but also plunge the country into a prolonged military conflict.
The findings are likely to intensify scrutiny within Israel, where political accountability has been limited and resignations among high-ranking officials have been rare. While the report in The Wall Street Journal emphasized that the commission’s report refrains from directly assigning blame, the revelations raise significant questions about both military leadership and the government’s ability to address national security vulnerabilities.
In the hours leading up to the assault, senior Israeli military officials engaged in discussions about Hamas’s unusual behavior but ultimately failed to grasp the urgency of the situation. The Wall Street Journal reported that Israeli military chief of staff Herzi Halevi instructed his deputies to gather further intelligence for a briefing the next day, believing that there was still time to assess the situation. Meanwhile, Israel’s military command was largely focused on the north, where tensions with Hezbollah in Lebanon had been escalating, diverting crucial resources and attention away from Gaza.
This strategic miscalculation provided Hamas with a perfect opportunity. The attack occurred on Simchat Torah, a Jewish holiday, when troop levels along the Gaza border were lower than usual. Hamas exploited this vulnerability, executing a meticulously planned assault that overwhelmed Israeli defenses in ways the military had never anticipated.
Israel’s worst-case scenario planning for a potential Gaza-based attack assumed that Hamas might attempt to breach the border at four to eight points. Hamas terrorists successfully infiltrated nearly 60 locations along the border.
In a highly coordinated operation, Hamas’s first strike targeted the Israeli military base responsible for defending the Gaza perimeter. According to the information provided in The Wall Street Journal report, the group’s fighters executed high-ranking commanders, dismantled Israeli intelligence capabilities in the area, and paralyzed communications, leaving Israeli forces blind to the unfolding crisis for three critical hours. This initial offensive allowed Hamas to send wave after wave of fighters across the border, attacking military installations, slaughtering civilians at a music festival, and devastating entire agricultural communities.
It took Israel five and a half hours to mobilize reinforcements and three full days to reclaim control of the overrun areas. By then, the damage was catastrophic: 1,200 people were dead, 251 had been taken hostage, and Israel had suffered its most significant security failure since its founding in 1948, as was indicated in The Wall Street Journal report.
While Israeli intelligence had field observers and analysts warning of Hamas’s intentions, their alerts were either dismissed or deprioritized. The Wall Street Journal reported that although lower-level intelligence personnel raised concerns about Hamas’s military build-up, senior officials maintained a deeply flawed assessment: that Hamas had no interest in launching a war against Israel.
One of the most striking admissions in the report, as cited by The Wall Street Journal, is that as late as 6:29 a.m. on October 7—just before Hamas launched a massive rocket barrage to cover its ground assault—there was no official within Israel’s military structure who was able to say with certainty that Hamas was preparing for a large-scale attack. This staggering intelligence failure speaks volumes about the depth of Israel’s miscalculations and the severe breakdown in its ability to detect and respond to existential threats.
According to the information contained in The Wall Street Journal report, the plan had originally been approved by Hamas leadership in 2019 and given operational clearance in August 2021. By April 2022, Hamas was actively selecting potential attack dates, with thousands of militants undergoing specialized training. Yet, despite these clear signs of an impending threat, Israeli intelligence officials maintained the belief that Hamas was primarily focused on consolidating its rule in Gaza and extending its influence into the West Bank, rather than preparing for a direct confrontation with Israel.
In a briefing to reporters ahead of the report’s public release, a senior Israeli military official acknowledged the catastrophic intelligence failure: “We ended up with a strategy that collapsed on Oct. 7.” The Wall Street Journal report noted that while an official summary of the investigation has been published, the full report has yet to be released to the public.
The origins of Hamas’s October 7 attack date back to 2016, when Yahya Sinwar, a hardline leader who prioritized direct military confrontation with Israel, rose through Hamas’s leadership ranks. The Wall Street Journal report detailed how Israeli intelligence failed to detect this strategic shift within Hamas, continuing to operate under the assumption that the terrorist group sought economic stability rather than war.
This was not Hamas’s first attempt at launching a surprise attack. According to The Wall Street Journal, in 2014, some Hamas leaders proposed a similar large-scale assault on Israel but were overruled. After the war that summer, Hamas’s leadership concluded that their next confrontation with Israel would need to start with a shock offensive to gain a tactical advantage. The 2023 attack was the realization of that long-term strategy.
Adding to Israel’s intelligence blind spot was Hamas’s perception that internal turmoil within Israel—particularly over the country’s controversial judicial overhaul—created an ideal moment to strike. The Wall Street Journal reported that Hamas leaders viewed Israeli political divisions as a sign of weakness, emboldening their decision to proceed with the attack.
The military report, as cited by The Wall Street Journal, outlines how Hamas’s attack unfolded in a devastatingly efficient manner. At 6:29 a.m. on October 7, Hamas began firing a barrage of rockets into Israel to create chaos and divert attention from the ground invasion. At 6:45 a.m., Israeli Brigade Commander Asaf Hamami radioed a chilling acknowledgment: “We are at war.”
By the time Israeli forces fully grasped the scale of the attack, Hamas had already sent 1,500 trained fighters across the border. The Wall Street Journal report noted that Hamas’s top military commander, Mohammed Deif, issued a rallying cry urging all Gazans to take up arms and storm Israel. By noon, an estimated 5,600 terrorists and civilians from Gaza were inside Israeli territory, engaging in massacres, abductions, and large-scale destruction.
Israeli forces were caught in complete disarray. According to The Wall Street Journal report, Israel’s chain of command was severely disrupted, leaving the military effectively blind for crucial hours. Many officers and soldiers, upon seeing reports of the attack on social media, drove themselves to the front lines, while large-scale reinforcements took hours to mobilize. At the time of the invasion, Israel had only a few hundred troops defending the border, an insufficient force given the scale of the attack.
A key revelation from the military investigation, as reported by The Wall Street Journal, is how Hamas successfully misled Israel into believing it had been deterred from war. Following its last major conflict with Israel in 2021, Hamas refrained from engaging in battles with Israeli forces, even as smaller militant groups in Gaza launched attacks. This restraint led Israeli intelligence officials to conclude that Hamas was prioritizing economic concessions over military action.
In reality, Hamas was simply waiting for the right moment. The Wall Street Journal report highlighted that Israeli intelligence overestimated Hamas’s dependence on outside actors, believing the group would not strike without the backing of Iran, Hezbollah, or other Palestinian factions. However, while Hezbollah did fire rockets into Israel, triggering a two-front conflict, Hamas ultimately acted alone in launching the October 7 assault. This miscalculation contributed to Israel’s failure to anticipate the attack.
According to The Wall Street Journal, an Israeli official acknowledged that intelligence officers simply did not question their long-standing assessment that Hamas was not interested in launching a war. “The specific intelligence details that popped up during that night [of Oct. 6, 2023] weren’t strong enough to break a yearslong conception,” the official stated. This rigid mindset prevented Israeli intelligence from recognizing the severity of the threat, even as clear warning signals emerged.
The findings from the military report, as detailed by The Wall Street Journal, highlight a dangerous complacency within Israel’s intelligence community. Over the years, intelligence priorities shifted away from identifying strategic threats in favor of providing real-time battlefield intelligence for ongoing military operations. This transition meant that the very function Israel depended on to detect and prevent major attacks had been severely weakened.
The central conclusion of the military investigation is that Israel cannot allow threats to fester on its borders, as it did with both Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The October 7 attack was a stark reminder that terrorist organizations can grow stronger under conditions of strategic neglect, eventually reaching a point where they pose an existential danger.
To address these failures, the military report recommends several sweeping reforms, as cited by The Wall Street Journal: Establishing a dedicated intelligence unit whose sole mission is to assess and respond to warning signals, preventing intelligence officers from becoming too preoccupied with day-to-day military operations. Expanding the size of the Israeli military to ensure that border defenses are not stretched too thin, as they were on October 7. Strengthening border fortifications to prevent future large-scale breaches, particularly in vulnerable areas such as Gaza and Lebanon.
The findings of the report have fueled public outcry in Israel, particularly among survivors of the October 7 attack, many of whom have been advocating for the establishment of a formal state commission of inquiry to hold officials accountable. Unlike military probes, such a commission would have the legal authority to subpoena individuals and demand resignations where necessary.
However, The Wall Street Journal reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected these calls, insisting that Israel must focus on winning the war against Hamas before launching any formal investigations. This position has sparked criticism from survivors and opposition figures, who argue that accountability and military operations should not be mutually exclusive.
The findings of this investigation lay bare fundamental weaknesses in Israel’s intelligence and military strategy. The inability to question long-standing assumptions, the shift away from early-warning intelligence, and the failure to contain threats at the border all contributed to the devastating attack.
While the proposed reforms could help prevent future disasters, the refusal to launch an official state inquiry raises concerns about whether the necessary accountability measures will ever be implemented. For Israel, the October 7 attack remains both a national tragedy and a stark warning about the dangers of underestimating one’s enemies.
President Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order on Friday designating English as the official language of the United States, according to the White House.
The order will allow government agencies and organizations that receive federal funding to choose whether to continue to offer documents and services in language other than English, according to a fact sheet about the impending order.
It was not immediately clear when on Friday that Trump planned to sign the order.
The executive order will rescind a mandate from former President Bill Clinton that required the government and organizations that received federal funding to provide language assistance to non-English speakers.
Designating English as the national language “promotes unity, establishes efficiency in government operations, and creates a pathway for civic engagement,” according to the White House.
More than 30 states have already passed laws designating English as their official language, according to U.S. English, a group that advocates for making English the official language in the United States.
For decades, lawmakers in Congress have introduced legislation to designate English as the official language of the U.S., but those efforts have not succeeded.
Within hours of Trump’s inauguration last month, the new administration took down the Spanish language version of the official White House website.
Hispanic advocacy groups and others expressed confusion and frustration at the change. The White House said at the time it was committed to bringing the Spanish language version of the website back online. As of Friday, it was still not restored.
The White House did not immediately respond to a message about whether that would happen.
Trump shut down the Spanish version of the website during his first term. It was restored when President Joe Biden was inaugurated.
The Wall Street Journal first reported on the order Friday.
(DCNF) The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is reportedly probing a massive Biden-era Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) program for possible fraud, EPA officials confirmed to the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Believe it or not, the former CEO and current CEO of a green organization picked to receive billions from the Biden @EPA are both big time Democrat donors.
Specifically, FBI agents reportedly interviewed EPA employees this week as part of an escalating investigation of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), a $20 billion program that awarded billions of dollars to green groups loaded with Democrat donors and insiders, The Washington Post first reported Friday citing anonymous sources familiar with the situation so that they could speak freely. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has repeatedly expressed concern about the GGRF abusing taxpayer dollars to benefit friends of the Biden EPA, though some career federal prosecutors have shied away from advancing the investigation when called upon to do so.
Zeldin has said that he will attempt to pull back as much of the GGRF cash as possible, and President Donald Trump campaigned aggressively against the Biden administration’s excessive green spending on his way back to the White House. The Trump EPA has cited a December 2024 video from Project Veritas, a conservative activist group, in which a Biden EPA employee tells an undercover Project Veritas employee that the agency’s rush to push funding out in the administration’s final days was “like we’re on the Titanic and we’re throwing, like, gold bars off the edge.”
The Biden EPA parked the $20 billion at Citibank before being replaced by Trump administration personnel, and GGRF recipients say they are unable to make withdrawals from the bank, according to the Post. Meanwhile, the EPA’s acting inspector general, Nicole Murley, testified Wednesday on Capitol Hill that her office is examining the GGRF and that there are concerns the Biden EPA’s late rush to get funding out the door may have impacted the screening process for potential recipients, for example.
The FBI contacted Brent Efron, the EPA official in the Project Veritas video, on Monday, and the EPA inspector general’s office has also made contact, according to the Post. Mark Zaid, Efron’s attorney, told the Post that Efron “doesn’t know what this is about, and that he was never involved in the obligation or disbursement of funds from any EPA assistance program” and that Efron “was not involved in any conversations about EPA and Citibank.”
The EPA and Department of Justice did not respond immediately to requests for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please
(JNS) – Israel (Robert J.) Aumann was awarded the 2005 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his contribution to Game Theory, a branch of applied mathematics that studies strategic interactions between individuals or groups.
Aumann has said that if he could describe Game Theory in one word, it would be “incentives.”
JNS caught up with Aumann on Feb. 23 at his offices in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where he is a member of the Einstein Institute of Mathematics and The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, to ask what he thought of the current prisoner exchange deal between Israel and Hamas.
The deal called for the release of 33 Israeli hostages in exchange for about 1,900 imprisoned terrorists, many of them murderers serving multiple life sentences.
“The basis of Game Theory is to give incentives to the other side to do what’s good for you,” Aumann told JNS. “And we keep doing the opposite. We are literally killing ourselves. We are killing our own children. It’s not only that they will kidnap more. We are incentivizing them to attack us again and again, to make war against us, to repeat Oct. 7,” he said, referring to the Hamas-led massacre of Oct. 7, 2023.
Q: Do we know the recidivism rates of these released prisoners who return to terror?
A: We don’t have the exact number. It’s important. Someone should pull together those numbers. It doesn’t even require any analysis. It’s just a matter of gathering the available data. There are a lot of sources.
When it comes to recidivism, not every terrorist attack is successful. In fact, my subjective impression is that most terrorist attacks are not successful. Most of the time, they kill the terrorist, or they stop him before he manages to kill someone.
Let’s say the number of unsuccessful attacks is somewhere between 50% to 75%. But that leaves successful ones between 25% and 50%, and if you talk about 1,000 terrorists released, we get maybe between 250 and 500 successful terrorist attacks where they manage to kill somebody, at least one person. That’s at least 250 dead for 33 live hostages.
Just on that basis alone, it’s obviously a terrible deal.
But that’s not the worst of it. The worst of it is that again and again we’re going to have people kidnapped. We’ve shown the enemy that it’s worth it, that we will completely give up and raise a white flag even if you abduct one, like with Gilad Shalit [an IDF soldier kidnapped by Hamas in June 2006 and exchanged five years later for 1,027 terrorist prisoners.]
We’ve given them incentives to go and kidnap more and more. And they’ve said they’re going to do it. They did it in the past. So we better believe them.
Q: Is Game Theory relevant to understanding this deal?
A: There’s a game that’s more or less relevant to the conflict, and that is the Blackmailer’s Game. I don’t even think that the Blackmailer’s Game is that relevant, but I’ll tell you what it is.
Anne and Bob are given $10,000 and told, “You get the $10,000 if you can agree how to split it.”
Anne is overjoyed. She says she doesn’t have that much money and $5,000 means a lot. She says, “Bob, we have $10,000— $5,000 to me, $5,000 to you.”
Bob says, “No way, I’m not leaving this room with less than $9,000.” Anne says, “Be reasonable.” He says, “I won’t go away with less than $9,000 and if you want, you don’t have to agree. We’ll both go away with nothing.” So Anne thinks it over for a while, and says, “Okay, $1,000 is better than nothing.”
And that’s how they split it. Now the trouble with that is that Anne is rational and Bob is the one who’s irrational, but the irrational guy comes out with a lot more than the rational one.
Q: If you were Israel’s chief negotiator, what would you tell the other side?
A: I would say one for one. One prisoner per hostage is the maximum. And if they say it’s out of the question, I would say, “Okay, now we wipe you out.” I would stop this hostage business. One for one, that’s my answer. And if it means that no hostages are released, so be it. Let the people in Kaplan do what they want. [The Israeli protesters calling for a hostage release deal gather near Kaplan Street in Tel Aviv.]
Q: How can Israel break this pattern of handing over enormous numbers of prisoners for a handful of captives?
A: You just change it. At the beginning, I guess they will just kill the kidnapped. Or they’ll keep them, hoping we relent. A specific part of the deal of this last exchange, stage one [of the ceasefire agreement], was that the released prisoners do not even have to sign a non-binding statement that they will not return to terrorism. That’s an explicit part of the agreement—that they don’t have to agree. So we are actually killing ourselves.
And the tremendous amount of fuss that’s made over bodies is absolutely terrible. We should give zero for bodies. Even people on the right make a big fuss about the bodies that are released. A body is a body. It’s not a person.
We should take a very tough stance, one that will probably simply be rejected by the other side. We should do this for the future. My children are no longer of army age. But I have grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, and I want them to live. I’m almost 95, but I’m worried about them.
People wave these banners at the protests that say, “What would you say if it were your father?” If it was my father, maybe I’d say something different. I’m not sure. But our government has to worry not only about the people whose father is captive, but about the whole population. If we’re going to get 10 people killed for one captive released, then that’s bad.
Q: What do you think of the death penalty as a solution? If we kill all the terrorists, then there are none to exchange.
A: It’s something to consider. That’s a big step to take, and I’m not sure. The original law that there’s no death penalty in Israel except for Nazi [criminals]—in fact, it was only carried out for [Adolf] Eichmann—I think that that is good because it sets the Holocaust apart from everything else.
I’m also afraid of ourselves, of our judicial system, that this would lead to complications.
There’s something I want to say that I haven’t said before. The other side are idealists. Yes, they are terrorists and they want to kill me, but their motives are not low or degraded. They stick by their ideals, and they’re willing to give their lives for their ideals. I want to kill them, but I respect them.
Q: You have criticized the campaign of the hostages’ families as raising the price that Hamas demands for the hostages.
A: Let’s be honest. It’s not the hostages’ families. The handful of hostages’ families could never have raised the billions that this campaign cost. [There is a movement of] people who are opposed to the government. We know some of their names. [Former Israeli Prime Minister] Ehud Barak is prominent among them. This is an attempt to bring down the government, or to [force them] throw up their hands in the war, to give up. There are people here opposed to the Zionist enterprise. They want a country for all its citizens, one-state or something like that.
I would add that not all the Kaplan people are post-Zionists. But the leadership is, the people who drive it. And the others sort of go along. There are some very good Zionists there. Some of my own descendants are part of the Kaplan protests.
Q: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made the Gilad Shalit deal and now he’s making another Shalit deal. How do you explain that? Why isn’t he putting a stop to it?
A: [U.S. President Donald] Trump threatened. He said before he was sworn in that there’s going to be hell to pay if there’s no deal. This was generally interpreted as a threat to Hamas, but actually it may also have been a threat to Netanyahu.
Also, one of the main people on the negotiating team was the head of the Shabak [the Israel Security Agency], who is left wing.
Now this is changing, but maybe part of the problem was that the negotiating team was no good. But it’s a small part of the problem.
Q: If we know where these deals lead, why do we keep doing them?
A: It’s a post-Zionist tendency. They actually control what’s being done. They can throw out cases; laws that are passed by the Knesset. They’re in charge of the army. They’re in charge of the police. I won’t say that they’re totally running the country. But they have tentacles and that has a lot of practical effects.
Earlier I said I respect our enemy. But I don’t respect—I won’t call them the enemy—but the other side, the post-Zionists. If they don’t like it here, they should leave.
The Department of Education announced on Jan. 23 that it was taking steps to remove diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives from the agency, which includes putting related staff on paid leave. “These actions are in line with President Trump’s ongoing commitment to end illegal discrimination and wasteful spending across the federal government.” said a statement from the agency. “They are the first step in reorienting the agency toward prioritizing meaningful learning ahead of divisive ideology in our schools.” Credit: Shutterstock
Feb. 28 is the deadline for public school districts to end all DEI-related practices, policies, and curricula or risk losing federal funding under President Donald Trump’s executive order enforcing Civil Rights protections.
The U.S. Department of Education has not yet specified the next steps for sanctioning schools following the deadline and hasn’t disclosed whether any districts proactively contacted the federal agency with proof of compliance.
“Additional guidance on implementation is forthcoming,” Craig Trainor, the agency’s acting assistant director for Civil Rights, wrote via email to The Epoch Times.
Trainor’s Feb. 14 letter provided to states and school districts noted the 14-day deadline for ceasing DEI programs.
He called race-based preferential treatment, crude racial stereotypes, and practices that promote segregation within a school “a shameful echo of a darker period in this country’s history.”
“The department will no longer tolerate the overt and covert racial discrimination that has become widespread in this nation’s educational institutions,” the letter reads.
“The law is clear: treating students differently on the basis of race to achieve nebulous goals such as diversity, racial balancing, social justice, or equity is illegal under controlling Supreme Court precedent.”
That prompted a lawsuit from the American Federation of Teachers and the American Sociological Association.
The Feb. 25 complaint, filed in a Maryland federal court, seeks to bar enforcement of Trump’s anti-DEI policy on grounds that it is overly vague and violates free speech rights.
The Epoch Times has previously reported that the five largest school districts in the nation (serving New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, and Las Vegas) collectively stand to lose more than $5 billion in federal funding if they don’t end DEI practices.
The deadline falls at the same time that many public school districts are planning their 2025–2026 budgets. Federal money typically makes up about 10 percent of a local district’s annual spending plan.
Federal funding from the U.S. Education Department is provided to schools with low-income student populations and covers special education programs.
The agency has also provided billions of dollars in competitive grants for curricula and staffing, many of which were centered on DEI and prioritized under the Biden administration.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture funds free and reduced meals for low-income students at school. During the 2022–23 academic year, more than half of K-12 public school students were eligible for free or reduced meals, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
The Virginia-based Parents Defending Education organization constantly monitors public school activities related to DEI and transgender ideology.
As of Feb. 25, 22,805 schools serving more than 14 million students across 46 states and Washington, still maintain DEI policies, practices, and plans, according to the organization’s website.
The website provides links to DEI-related materials on the websites for each of the districts identified.
“School districts need to end diversity, equity, and inclusion policies and return to the original charter of educating children,” Rhyen Staley, a PDE researcher, wrote in a public statement.
“DEI has been a disaster for K–12, and the results are evident, as roughly 70 percent of American K–12 students are not proficient in reading or math.”
Israel’s Minister for the Diaspora, Amichai Chikli explains the spread of antisemitism in Europe: “European rise in antisemitism a result of Islamic migration, Diaspora minister says,” by Eliav Breuer, Jerusalem Post, February 16, 2025:
Chikli expressed support for immigration policies in Hungary and Poland, as examples of places where Jews can walk around freely. The comment drew murmurs from the crowd, with one person claiming that Hungary had a fascist government.
Both Hungary and Poland have managed to keep Muslim migrants out. The border guards stop Muslims from entering those countries. If some Muslims manage to get into either country, they discover there are no welfare benefits to be had, and they quickly leave countries that are so obviously hostile to their presence.
Chikli also warned against the spread of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria via its new regime, which is backed by Turkey. Erdogan and Turkey had the “exact same ideology” as Hamas, and therefore the Syrian front was one Israel should be concerned about.
Erdogan is a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas is the Gazan branch. His Turkish troops are now in northern Syria, apparently to stay, in order to prevent the Kurdish YPG (Kurdish Defense Forces) in that country from linking up with Kurds inside Turkey. That Turkish military presence in Syria is one more worry for the IDF.
Chikli is deeply suspicious of Abu Muhammad Al-Julani, Syria’s de facto ruler, and of the rebel group he headed, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. Al-Julani claims that he years ago broke all his ties to Al-Qaeda and ISIS, and is now intent on rebuilding the broken nation-state of Syria, not in furthering a pan-Islamic caliphate. But the schoolbooks just adopted in Syria contain worrisome changes in their texts, that stress Islamic themes and anti-Israel propaganda.
Qatar also shares this ideology and does public relations for Hamas, Chikli said, adding that the Qatari Al-Jazeera network was the first to put out pictures of hostages shown [under threats from their guards] denigrating IDF soldiers. Chikli said that involving Qatar in negotiations was a mistake.
Qatar has not been a neutral party in the ceasefire negotiations. Qatar is a loyal friend to Iran, the malevolent godfather to all the anti-Israel forces in the area — Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Assad’s army in Syria. Qatar has for years provided refuge to Hamas leaders. Living in Doha, those leaders are provided by Qatar with a safe place from which to plan and direct attacks, and to rally their members and to conduct their propaganda worldwide. Qatar has behind the scenes managed to persuade Hamas to hold firm in its demands both as to the timetable of the various phases of the exchange, and as to the numbers of Palestinian prisoners to be exchanged for each Israeli hostage to be released. Hamas leaders have followed Qatar’s advice, with the results — 1,900 Palestinian prisoners to be released for fewer than 70 Israeli hostages — we have all seen.
Chikli thinks the hostages-for-prisoners exchange is a bad idea. He believes that the numbers are intolerably lopsided, as they were with the 1,027 prisoners exchanged for Gilad Shalit in 2011, and that many of the 1,900 prisoners now being released will return to terrorism. He knows that according to the Shin Bet’s head, Ronen Bar, 82% of those released in 2011 resumed terrorist activity, and in Chikli’s calculation, those now released will be responsible for many more deaths than the number of hostages now being freed.
He also thinks it was unwise to let Qatar take part in the negotiations, as if it were a neutral party. Qatar has for years supported Hamas, not least by providing a secure refuge to its leaders. And behind the scenes, Chikli thinks that Qatar urged Hamas remain firm in its maximalist demands.
But what is of greatest interest is Amichai Chikli’s comment that the Muslim migrants in Europe are now the main carriers of antisemitism, and Israel should be making common cause with the so-called right-wing parties in Europe, such as Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National and Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party (Partij voor de Frieheid), for they are prepared to halt Muslim immigration and to deport, for various reasons, Muslims already in their countries. At the same time he thinks Israel should reach out to those countries — Hungary and Poland lead the list — that have managed to keep out almost all would-be migrants from Muslim lands. As a consequence, Jews in those countries have no fears of being assaulted, unlike Jews in London, Paris, Berlin, and Rome.
Until Chikli, no Israeli leader has so forthrightly addressed the link between the spread of antisemitism in Europe and the great increase in the continent’s Muslim population. He’s the first, but he won’t be the last. And he was speaking to Jewish leaders from around the world, who have now had that connection made, linking Muslim migrants to a precipitous rise in antisemitism, so that they too can bring that same message back to the Jewish communities they represent around the world. There’s no longer any excuse for avoiding the subject that is on the minds of many Jews — the connection between the spread of antisemitism and the increased numbers of Muslims in the West.
Investigators in Santa Fe, New Mexico, seeking to determine the cause of death for actor Gene Hackman, 95, his wife, 64, and one of their pet dogs are releasing more details about the tragic event.
According to a search-warrant affidavit from an officer investigating as reported by PEOPLE, the body of the two-time Oscar winner’s wife, Betsy Arakawa, was in the process of decomposing when they were found.
Arakawa “showed obvious signs of death, body decomposition, bloating in her face and mummification in both hands and feet,” the report states.
Hackman’s body was discovered in the home’s entryway fully clothed, with sunglasses next to his body, the report said, while Arakawa was found dead next to a space heater in a bathroom.
On a countertop near Arakawa, pills were reportedly scattered next to an open prescription bottle, according to the search warrant.
Police said they found the body of a German shepherd in the bathroom closet. Two other dogs were found alive and roaming the property.
Mummification occurs when dead tissue turns into a hard shrunken mass, often from dehydration, per PEOPLE.
In Arakawa’s case, only her hands and feet were dried out.
The search-warrant affidavit further states the deaths of Hackman and Arakawa are “suspicious enough in nature to require a thorough search and investigation.”
The Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office told TMZ The French Connection star and his wife’s bodies had been in their home for days before deputies found them deceased.
Authorities also shared there is “an active and ongoing investigation” into the couple’s deaths and more details would be revealed as and when they come to hand.
Freed Israeli hostage Eli Sharabi has described the conditions in which he was held by Hamas in Gaza, including torture and starvation that caused him to lose 40% of his body weight until he was released earlier this month.
“Ilana, do you know what it means to open the fridge?”
Chilling testimony from released hostage Eli Sharabi on the starvation in Hamas captivity. pic.twitter.com/q9wfcKzlOS
Sharabi, 52, only learned upon arriving in Israel that his wife, Lianne, and his two daughters, Noiya, 16, and Yahel, 13, were murdered by Hamas on October 7, 2023, during their terror attack on the community of Kibbutz Be’eri.
He looked so emaciated upon his release that even President Donald Trump expressed shock from afar, saying that the Israeli hostages looked “like Holocaust survivors.” And indeed, Sharabi’s account reinforces that parallel.
Sharabi, who lost over 30 kilograms (66 pounds) in captivity — some 40% of his body weight — and weighed just 44 kg (97 lbs) upon his release, said terrorists held the four hostages in iron chains and sometimes beat or humiliated them, and that they subsisted for months on a single plate of pasta each day.
…
He said the hunger pains were unbearable and that getting his captors to give them a dried-out date or a quarter of a piece of bread felt like a victory.
Sharabi reflected on the miracle of simply being able to open a refrigerator, once back in Israel, to eat:
Sharabi also spoke about meeting American-Israeli hostage Hersh Goldberg-Polin, who left a lasting impression that helped other hostages endure: “Hersh told us a sentence that stayed with us, and gave us strength, and didn’t allow us to lose hope — I knew him for two days and he gave me a sentence that stayed with me — he said: ‘When there’s a why, always find the how.’”
The first phase of the hostage-and-ceasefire deal with Hamas ended this week, with 63 hostages still in Gaza, of whom 24 are thought to be alive. Negotiations are under way for the release of the remaining hostages.
In this Thursday, June 6, 2019, file photo, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos speaks at the Amazon re:MARS convention, in Las Vegas. Amazon said Tuesday, Feb. 2, 2021, that Bezos is stepping down as CEO later in the year, a role he’s had since he founded the company nearly 30 years ago. (AP Photo/John Locher, File)
The Washington Post on Wednesday offered readers a how-to on participating in a nationwide boycott this Friday against several major corporations. Amazon, the online retail giant founded by Post owner Jeff Bezos, is a prime target of the boycott.
In a news article, “What to know about the no-shopping ‘economic blackout’ on Feb. 28,” the Post provides an explainer for a boycott organized by the People’s Union USA. The group, which launched earlier this month, instructs supporters: “Do not shop online, or in-store. No Amazon, No Walmart, No Best Buy. Nowhere!”
The Post story does not explicitly instruct readers to participate in the boycott. But it uncritically provides the group’s rationale for the boycott, information on the companies targeted in the campaign, and the schedule for future boycotts planned next month.
“How can you participate?” reads a subheadline in the story. It quotes guidance from People’s Union USA against “shopping online, ordering from restaurant chains or filling up at the gas station.”
“If you do need to buy something, shop local. And if you can, take the day off from work,” the Post reports.
The article includes an AI-generated summary of reader responses to the piece. According to the summary, Post readers emphatically support “a protest against large corporations, particularly targeting Amazon and other companies perceived to support the current administration.”
It could prove awkward for the Post, especially on the heels of Bezos’s announcement that the newspaper, which the mega-billionaire purchased for $250 million in 2013, will emphasize “free markets” and “personal liberties” in articles published in the paper’s opinion section.
Bezos announced the shift on Wednesday, stoking backlash from many Post journalists and others outside the newsroom. Longtime Post opinion editor David Shipley resigned from the paper. Post economics reporter Jeff Stein called it a “massive encroachment” on the editorial decisions of the newspaper. Freelance tech journalist Kara Swisher, a frequent CNN commentator, called Bezos “feral,” and said he had “killed” the First Amendment.
The Post story, in a section entitled “Will there be other economic blackouts?” lists a schedule of boycotts that People’s Union USA is planning against individual companies, including Amazon.
The group is calling for a boycott against Amazon, including its affiliates Whole Foods, from March 7-14. People’s Union USA plans to target Nestlé, Walmart, and General Mills in the next two months.
The story also provides little background on People’s Union USA, which was incorporated in Illinois earlier this month by meditation therapist John Schwarz. Schwarz launched a GoFundMe campaign to raise money for the boycott, and is selling merchandise with a logo of People’s Union USA, which features a black power fist. Schwarz is white.
According to Schwarz, money raised through GoFundMe will “go toward legal fees, organization development, web development, outreach, marketing, event organization, and more.”
“Everything is transparent, and every dollar is accounted for.”
Other organizations are planning boycotts against companies that have ditched their DEI programs. Al Sharpton, the activist and MSNBC host, announced on the liberal network that his group, the National Action Network, will soon boycott two companies for ending DEI initiatives.
That could create a potential regulatory headache for MSNBC and its parent company Comcast. The Federal Communications Commission launched an investigation this month into Comcast’s DEI practices.
The Post did not respond to a request for comment.
