Born in October 1965 in California to a Jewish family, Chatfield moved to Boston in the early 1980s, where she enrolled in an undergraduate program in international relations. After receiving a commission in the Navy, she went on to earn a master's degree in public administration from Harvard University and completed her doctorate in education at the University of San Diego. Her military career began in 1989 when she was certified as a helicopter pilot. From 2019 to 2023, she became the first woman to serve as president of the Naval War College.

In February 2023, Chatfield was appointed the US representative to NATO's Military Committee, making her one of the few women to attain the rank of three-star officer in the US Navy. While the Pentagon has yet to officially confirm the dismissal, numerous sources reported this week that NATO has already accepted her sudden removal. Notably, when the incoming US president announced in June the dismissal of Coast Guard Commander Adm. Linda Fagan, he said she had placed "too much emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion."

It appears that Shoshana Chatfield was removed for much the same reason. In February, the defense secretary labeled her remarks as NATO representative "the dumbest thing ever said in military history." Pete Hegseth was referring to a statement Chatfield made in 2015, on Women's Equality Day, when she said, "Our differences are our strength." Additionally, during her tenure as president of the Naval War College, she encouraged staff members not to suppress their individuality.

Chatfield's high-profile dismissal is part of a broader trend under the Trump administration. As noted, the removal of the senior Jewish Navy officer followed the ousting of Adm. Lisa Franchetti, chief of naval operations, and Timothy Haugh, head of US Cyber Command, who was dismissed along with his deputy, Wendy Noble. Right-wing Jewish activist Laura Loomer, a close associate of President Trump, wrote in a post on her X profile that the officials were removed for "disloyalty to Trump."

However, a more official and substantiated explanation holds that the 47th president of the US is spearheading a sweeping overhaul intended to reshape the American military. According to Trump, the goal is to restore the Pentagon to its former glory. In fact, this is one of the cornerstone promises of his campaign for the White House. The billionaire has repeatedly said he intends to fire generals who promote Woke culture within the military and lead it down a progressive path. "I don't want a Woke military," he said in a June interview with Fox News.

"Any general that was involved is got to go," confirmed Pete Hegseth in a podcast interview published in November, though recorded long before his appointment. According to the US president and defense secretary, in recent years the military has been distracted by efforts to advance diversity and equity within its ranks, which in their view has significantly harmed its effectiveness. They argue that the policies promoted by the previous Democratic administration have damaged the performance of US troops, weakening what was once the strongest army in the world.

The post 'Every woke general is gotta go': Trump's revolution shakes up US military appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

At this very moment, the world's eyes are turned to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where the first high-level discussion between American and Russian officials is taking place since President Vladimir Putin ordered the full-scale invasion of Ukraine nearly three years ago. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that after the initial phase, Europe would be involved. However, another question occupies many minds: How did the city that was long considered the capital of the world's most conservative state transform within a few years into a center of international diplomacy and business?

In June 2012, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud was appointed crown prince following the death of his brother Nayef, and in January 2015, he became king after the death of his half-brother, King Abdullah. At age 80, the king gradually transferred the reins of power to his favored son Mohammed, appointing him prince shortly after, changing the succession line from horizontal (brother to brother) to vertical (father to son). Mohammed, known by his acronym MBS, who was less than 30 years old at the time of appointment, is essentially the face of change.

"Agenda 2030" is his manifesto – a plan to transform the nation's character by 2030 through reducing dependence on oil (Saudi Arabia is the world's largest producer), opening the economy to new technologies, and introducing women (who were previously invisible) into the workforce and society. By 2025, Prince Mohammed has already succeeded in some of his missions. Saudi Arabia today is barely recognizable compared to what it was 10 years ago. Unlike before, all Western nations now stand in line to take a small part in its meteoric development.

The change is not just cultural and economic, but also primarily about image. The new Saudi Arabia manages to market itself as more liberal and democratic, but in practice, it remains very similar to the old Saudi Arabia. It is well known that MBS' impressive results were achieved through the elimination of his opponents. In recent years alone, hundreds of opponents, economists, and journalists have been arrested. The most publicized case was the assassination of famous Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Istanbul consulate by individuals close to Prince Mohammed.

Regarding its relations with the United States, Riyadh has always maintained close ties with Washington. However, despite condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine, in recent years Saudi Arabia has also maintained friendly relations with Vladimir Putin, partly thanks to connections forged within OPEC – the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Through this network of relationships, Saudi Arabia has become the official mediator for prisoner exchanges between Russia and Ukraine, and between Russia and the United States – a critical and unique role that no other nation has achieved.

Indeed, Saudi Arabia is undoubtedly the most surprising yet strategic country for these talks. First and foremost because it has managed to maintain its hybrid geopolitical character between Russia and the United States, therefore being perceived by both sides as friendly territory, or at least not hostile. For Russia, the possibility of meeting in a country not associated with NATO – and one that did not join Western sanctions – is much more acceptable than meeting in Europe, for example. Similarly, the United States sees Saudi Arabia as a reliable mediator that maintains its status as a long-term ally.

Additionally, from a logistical and security perspective, Saudi Arabia can ensure discretion and control over the event. Riyadh can host both delegations far from the Western press's eye, which suits the sensitive and discreet nature of both Russia and the United States very well. It's also worth remembering that the Saudis already played an active role in the Ukraine war when in summer 2023 they hosted an international summit in Jeddah on the Ukrainian peace plan, attended by several world powers committed to the cause.

However, as mentioned, Riyadh's involvement is not without interests. On the contrary, it aligns with the broader Saudi strategy to upgrade its status as a global diplomatic hero. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman sees the high-profile negotiations as an opportunity to strengthen the kingdom's international image as a participant in peace and stability. After years in which Saudi Arabia was often associated with conflicts or human rights disputes, now MBS wants to present his country as part of the solution to global crises. Perhaps he, just like Donald Trump, dreams of a Nobel Peace Prize.

The post How did Saudi Arabia become the global mediator? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The race to free 98 Israelis held captive by Hamas in Gaza has taken an unexpected turn, becoming a political showdown between outgoing President Joe Biden and his successor, Donald Trump. As the US government deepens its involvement in negotiations, the complex dynamics of American influence in the Middle East are coming into sharp focus.

"To use a soccer analogy – Biden cooked, Trump scores," explains Rotem Oreg, director of LIBRAEL and an expert on American politics, in an interview with Makor Rishon. "It's essentially the same deal Biden proposed months ago, possibly even less favorable for Israel. But Trump managed to bring it to fruition."

Oreg's analysis challenges assumptions about the incoming president's relationship with Israel. "Biden was cautious, applying pressure while preserving Israel's dignity," he notes. "Trump is unpredictable – he could flip on us in a second."

The stakes are high for both leaders. After 16 months of war, securing the release of the hostages could be a defining moment. "Trump sees an opportunity to make history before even taking office," Oreg emphasizes. "He wants to enter the White House with this war behind him, declaring victory where Biden couldn't deliver."

However, the analyst is skeptical about the real impact of US pressure on Hamas. "I'm not convinced the US has any special leverage, regardless of who's president," Oreg states. He questions the effectiveness of Trump's public threats, arguing that Hamas remains largely unmoved by American rhetoric or potential actions.

Paradoxically, Oreg suggests that Trump's influence may be stronger on Israel than on Hamas. "Israel also bent in this deal," he observes. "There's a fear of disappointing Trump or appearing to interfere with the new administration." This dynamic raises concerns about the evolving US-Israel relationship.

Oreg describes this alliance as uniquely "three-legged," built on shared interests, values, and political benefits. "All three pillars are eroding," he warns. "We have reason to be worried, but nothing is lost yet."

Looking ahead, much depends on Trump's priorities. "The Middle East isn't likely his top concern," Oreg predicts. "If he sees political capital to be gained, he'll invest. If not, he might disengage like his predecessors."

As negotiations continue, the world watches to see which president will ultimately claim credit for bringing the hostages home – and at what cost to the delicate balance of power in the region.

The post Trump gets to score after Biden's goal assist appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Viral images circulated across social media platforms last weekend depicting Hollywood's iconic white sign overlooking Los Angeles consumed by flames. While this unsettling sight shocked millions globally, it was completely fabricated. The fire never reached Mount Lee, and the famous landmark remained untouched. These AI-generated fake images that captivated the world represent just a fraction of the false narratives and conspiracy theories surrounding the fires that have now spread across 45 square miles, claimed nine lives, and forced 180,000 residents to evacuate – with damages estimated at $150 billion.

The search for culprits behind this natural disaster began last week and has itself become mired in conspiracy theories. The first target was Kristin Crowley, the Los Angeles Fire Department Chief. Kristin has served in the organization for 22 years, led multiple departments, and has held her current leadership position since 2022. Beyond her professional role, the fire chief is also an openly lesbian woman who actively champions LGBTQ rights. Since the fires erupted, Kristin has endured intense online criticism, with thousands of users claiming she prioritized gender advocacy over fire prevention.

"' Do you really think that DEI really made the damage from these fires worse?' Uh yeah, I do. DEI was the fire chief's focus and the department + the city spent money on DEI while dangerous brush hadn't been cleared and fire hydrants didn't have water," conservative activist Robbie Starbuck said on his X account. The post gained widespread attention after being shared by Elon Musk. The world's wealthiest individual and Donald Trump's close ally also amplified the statement of Alex Jones, widely known as "America's conspiracy theorist," who claimed that the fires were deliberately set as part of a global plan to wage economic warfare.

Regarding the city's fire hydrant situation, Donald Trump publicly accused Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom of responsibility for Los Angeles's water supply difficulties. The incoming president alleged that Newsom refused to sign a water rehabilitation declaration that would have permitted the use of millions of gallons of water to combat the fires. The governor's office rejected this claim, stating "There is no water rehabilitation document, it's pure fantasy," but the BBC revealed that Newsom had indeed opposed – in 2020, during Trump's first term – increasing water allocation to Southern California.

Karen Bass, Los Angeles mayor since 2022, faced similar harsh criticism over her environmental policy decisions. Some went so far as to claim she bore direct responsibility for the massive fires, orchestrated the disaster, and should be held accountable. While Bass did reduce the fire department's budget about a year ago, cutting $17.6 million from a total budget of $820 million, she defended her actions: "It's most important to understand that we were in tough budgetary times – everybody knew that – but that the impact of our budget really did not impact what we've been going through over the last few days."

The conspiracy theories currently circulating worldwide extend to California's two powerhouse industries: technology and entertainment. These theories suggest the severe fires weren't caused by negligence or natural disasters but resulted from deliberate arson to advance the SmartLA 2028 plan: building a new city from Los Angeles' ashes, governed by artificial intelligence. This theory draws inspiration from an obscure 2020 document discussing the city's "digitalization" and the use of laser weapons against an unspecified enemy.

And of course, there's Hollywood – where conspiracy theorists claim that certain celebrities orchestrated the fires to cover up their alleged crimes. This narrative focuses on Sean (Diddy) Combs, who faced rape and human trafficking accusations in September. Some online theories claim the existence of a tunnel connecting the rapper's residence to the Playboy mansion – a passage never discovered. Conspiracy theorists argue the fire stemmed from desperate attempts to destroy this alleged tunnel and eliminate evidence that could further compromise Diddy and his associates. They point to the destruction of numerous celebrity homes in the fire as supposed evidence.

A more credible theory still under investigation suggests the fire resulted from severe environmental conditions exacerbated by climate change. This scenario proposes that initial ignition, combined with failures in the regional power grid, not only went unchecked but spread rapidly. Perhaps most concerning to Americans is that California – despite being among the best-prepared states for such disasters – was reduced to ashes. This raises an alarming question: what might happen if similar fires erupted across other US states? The implications could be catastrophic.

The post How LA fires ignited a storm of conspiracies appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Just a week ago, at least 46 people were killed and six injured in Pakistan's airstrikes in Afghanistan's eastern Paktika Province. The Taliban government condemned the attack, claiming most victims were refugees from Waziristan, and vowed retaliation. Meanwhile, Pakistani security officials, speaking anonymously to the AP, said the operation aimed to dismantle a training facility and eliminate insurgents in the area.

For those unfamiliar with the shared history of Afghanistan and Pakistan, the recent attack might seem like an isolated security incident. However, the reality is far more complex. The tensions between these two nations have deep historical roots, and the current escalation is merely the surface of a long-standing rivalry divided by a contentious border.

"To understand the roots of the conflict, we must start with geography—the foundation of everything," wrote geopolitical expert Eyal Hashkes in a post on X (formerly Twitter). "Afghanistan and Pakistan share a massive 2,640-kilometer border. This mountainous area is home to many tribes, making it difficult for any state authority to exert control. On the Pakistani side, the tribes have partial autonomy under what is called the 'Federally Administered Tribal Areas.'"

On the Afghan side, understanding the Taliban and their power is crucial. The Taliban emerged in 1994 when a group of clerics and students from Islamic schools (madrassas) exploited Afghanistan's chaos to organize. By 1996, they had seized control of most of the country.

"The Taliban's rise was built on Islamic, nationalist, and tribal sentiments prevalent in Afghanistan," Hashkes explains. "But it's doubtful they could have succeeded without Pakistan's active support." From its inception, Pakistan provided the Taliban with extensive aid, including weapons, funding, and recruits. The goal? "Pakistan aimed to weaken Afghanistan's stability so it would not pose a threat."

In simpler terms, a strong and stable Afghanistan posed a strategic risk for Pakistan, as it could ally with Pakistan's archrival, India, to the south. Supporting the Taliban seemed like a way to undermine Afghanistan. Historically, however, this strategy backfired. Strengthening the Taliban inadvertently empowered an organization that would eventually become a direct adversary.

Before returning to the present, one pivotal moment must be revisited: following the 9/11 attacks in 2001 and the Taliban's harboring of al-Qaida, the US intervened in Afghanistan. It supported the Northern Alliance, a coalition of anti-Taliban militias, to oust the Taliban. For the next two decades, efforts were made to establish a Taliban-free Afghan state and military.

"Even during those years, Pakistan provided refuge to the defeated Taliban," Hashkes notes. "One of the most crucial factors aiding insurgencies is safe haven, and indeed, the Taliban gradually regained strength, retaking Afghan territories. The US withdrawal in 2021 allowed the Taliban to easily overrun the rest of Afghanistan and establish one of the world's most extreme Islamist regimes."

If you thought today's Taliban is the same group from the 1990s, think again. "This is the Pakistani Taliban—a network of Islamist militias with no organizational ties to the Afghan Taliban," Hashkes clarifies. "While the Afghan Taliban focused on ruling Afghanistan, the Pakistani Taliban seeks to overthrow Pakistan's government and establish an extremist Islamic regime."

Since the Afghan Taliban regained control of Afghanistan in 2021, they have failed to curb the Pakistani Taliban's activities as Pakistan had hoped. On the contrary, they are likely supplying weapons left behind after the US withdrawal. As a result, Pakistan has endured a surge in terror attacks by the Pakistani Taliban, alongside a Baluchi minority uprising and a severe economic crisis.

"This is a supreme irony," Hashkes remarks in his post. "Pakistan gave the Afghan Taliban sanctuary to regain strength and reclaim Afghan territories—now the Afghan Taliban provides sanctuary to Pakistan's enemy, the Pakistani Taliban." Over the past 10 months alone, more than 1,500 people have died in terror attacks in Pakistan.

The escalating tensions prompted Pakistan to take drastic action: the 4 million Afghan refugees who fled decades of war—from the 1979 Soviet invasion to the Taliban's resurgence—were ordered to leave. Over 700,000 undocumented Afghan refugees have already been expelled.

"Pakistan extended registered refugees' permits by a year," Hashkes explains, "but the handling of undocumented refugees has created one of the world's worst humanitarian crises. This issue has worsened the nations' tensions and now escalated into direct combat."

While the fighting is far from Israel's borders, its repercussions could ripple beyond Central Asia to the Middle East.

"I'll end with a quote to British media from a senior Taliban figure that encapsulates the mindset," Hashkes concludes in his post. "'We don't care if Pakistan has nuclear weapons—we have faith, and Allah is on our side.' This is likely not the outcome Pakistan envisioned when it elevated the Taliban."

The post Afghanistan and Pakistan on the brink of war appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The Polish government's ambitious military modernization continues, including the acquisition of 96 AH-64E Apache attack helicopters from the US and 212 self-propelled howitzers from South Korea. These moves position Poland to become Europe's leading military power—outpacing Germany, France, and potentially the UK in the near future—second only to Vladimir Putin's Russia in strength. Moreover, Poland's close relationship with the White House has cemented its growing importance within NATO, which it joined in 1999 alongside the Czech Republic and Hungary.

Like Sweden, Poland is bolstering its defenses in response to the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. Polish officials state that these investments aim to deter Russia and prevent further escalation. "The $11 billion we've allocated to strengthening Poland's army is an insurance policy for our freedom," said Defense Minister Mariusz Błaszczak.

Additionally, Warsaw has launched the "Eastern Shield" program to reinforce its borders with Belarus and Russia's Kaliningrad enclave. This initiative includes physical barriers and advanced surveillance systems.

Historical tensions with Russia

Poland's fear of Russian aggression is not unfounded. It is rooted in centuries of animosity dating back to the 17th century, marked by mutual invasions. Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Poland immediately voiced its support for Kyiv and quickly put words into actions, further straining relations with Moscow.

Poland has not only hosted 1.5 million Ukrainian refugees but also emerged as a key transit hub for military aid to Ukraine. The Polish government has contributed substantial military aid, including 324 tanks, 18 howitzers, and 42 combat vehicles, many inherited from the Soviet era. According to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy in Germany, which tracks international aid to Ukraine, Poland's contributions exceed €4 billion, with three-quarters allocated to weaponry.

The leadership transition from conservative Jarosław Kaczyński to liberal Donald Tusk in 2023 has not altered Poland's defense overhaul. The Homeland Defense Act, passed in 2022, mandates the military to expand its ranks from 120,000 soldiers to 300,000 by 2035. Discussions about reinstating mandatory military service are also underway.

Last summer, Poland launched an initiative called "Vacation with the Army," a 28-day program offering basic combat training to individuals aged 18 and over, many of whom are recent high school graduates. Participants receive 6,000 zlotys (€1,400) for their training. The program, available in 70 locations across Poland, has attracted significant interest from young Poles. "Russia's large-scale invasion of Ukraine has inspired many Poles to take up national defense," said Michał Tomczyk, a Defense Ministry spokesperson.

The bulk of Poland's defense spending is directed toward advanced weaponry, including air defense missile launchers, AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, F-35 fighter jets, HIMARS rocket launchers, Hercules transport planes, Black Hawk helicopters, Javelin anti-tank missiles, and Turkish drones. Warsaw also announced plans to acquire 1,400 new tanks, many from South Korea, which has become Poland's second-largest arms supplier after the US, ahead of Turkey.

In 2023, Poland's defense budget stood at 97.4 billion zlotys (€20 billion), equivalent to nearly 4% of its GDP. Recent agreements will increase this to 4.7% of GDP by 2025—the highest proportion among NATO members. These unprecedented figures highlight Poland's readiness to confront Vladimir Putin's military should Russia cross another red line in Eastern Europe's fragile geopolitical landscape.

The post Poland builds Europe's strongest military, surpassing Germany, France, UK appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Just a month ago, on the 1,000th day since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war, the Swedish government distributed a guidebook to its citizens titled In Case of Crisis or War. The booklet provides practical advice on preparing for a potential Russian nuclear strike, which could target not only Ukraine, but also neighboring countries. This week, Sweden's government introduced additional safety regulations, some of them extraordinary.

For instance, the MSB assigned Gothenburg's main church the task of preparing burial arrangements for 30,000 soldiers in the event of war or a "major disaster." The agency also urged churches and funeral directors to secure spaces so that "we can bury a very large number of deceased in a short time," a grim statement that has caused alarm nationwide.

The MSB further requested the city to allocate 10 acres of land for the rapid burial of individuals, potentially amounting to 5% of the local population. "We must prepare for military burials—something new for us that we have never had to do before," said Catharina Evenstedt, who oversees burials for Sweden's Lutheran Church, which manages most cemeteries in Gothenburg, during an interview with Swedish public radio.

Following the Cold War, Sweden significantly scaled back its defense infrastructure. Now, it appears the country is working to rebuild it. In contrast, neighboring Finland maintained its defense systems despite the belief that European nations might never again have to fight for their survival. In light of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, both Sweden and Finland sought NATO membership, with many local politicians openly discussing the possibility of regional war.

Once dismissed as an alarmist, President Vladimir Putin's aggressive actions have united Sweden's parliament behind the need for preparedness. Echoing NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte's statement, "We are not at war, but neither are we at peace," Sweden—the newest member of NATO since joining last March—finds itself on the brink of an armed conflict with Russia. According to the Nordic Times, the Swedish government has already informed citizens that the country is effectively at war.

Last Friday, Swedish Army Commander Jonny Lindfors discussed the escalating security situation with British Army Commander Roland Walker. Both agreed on the significant threat posed by Russia to Europe. "The Russian self-image, where they believe they have the right to dominate neighboring states, threatens Europe's security," said Lindfors. He added, "They are not only fighting Ukraine but waging a battle against the entire West."

Although Sweden does not share a border with Russia and is therefore less geopolitically vulnerable than Finland or Norway, it treats the Russian threat with equal seriousness. Since 1931, Sweden has maintained an alarm system that sounds four times a year to ensure it remains operational. During these drills, citizens are required to tune in to public radio channels to receive instructions and respond accordingly. Until now, the alarms have always been false. Soon, Swedes may have to face the reality of a genuine alert.

The post 30000 graves: Sweden prepares for war with Russia appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

A new survey conducted by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), in collaboration with YouGov and Datapraxis, highlights how British citizens now favor the European Union over closer ties with Donald Trump's United States. Surprisingly, the findings indicate that even a majority of Britons who supported Brexit now favor rejoining the EU, largely driven by the desire for unrestricted movement across member states.

As a reminder, the United Kingdom officially left the EU, a process referred to as "Brexit" (a combination of "Britain" and "Exit"), on January 31, 2020, at 11:00 PM. This marked the end of 47 years of UK membership in European institutions. The decision to leave the EU was made in a referendum held on June 23, 2016, in which 51.9% voted in favor of leaving, compared to 48.1% who wished to remain.

"The Russian invasion of Ukraine and Donald Trump's election as US president have fundamentally altered the context of EU-UK relations," stated the ECFR report. "There is an extraordinary consensus among both Britons and Europeans that it is time to reassess the severed ties of 2020."

The ECFR survey, conducted with over 9,000 participants from the UK and the five most populous EU countries—Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and Poland—in the weeks following the Republican candidate's victory in the US presidential election, revealed widespread enthusiasm in Britain for rekindling ties with Europe.

Why the change? One likely reason lies in the harsh rhetoric of the newly elected US president toward the EU throughout his campaign. "The EU looks so cute, so charming. All these beautiful European villages coming together… right? No, because in reality, they're robbing us," Trump remarked in one of his well-known speeches in Pennsylvania. "They don't buy our cars or our agricultural products—they've become a little China."

In response, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen reminded the Republican candidate that the US and the EU are "more than just allies." Following his sweeping victory, she tweeted: "We are bound by a true partnership for the benefit of our people—let's work together to advance a stronger transatlantic agenda than ever."

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer also addressed Trump's victory, calling it a "historic win." On his X account, Starmer wrote that he is prepared to work "side by side" with the Trump administration to defend shared values of "freedom, democracy, and entrepreneurship." Starmer also emphasized the "special relationship" between London and Washington, expressing hope that it would "continue to thrive for many years."

However, it seems that sentiments of cautious celebration have seeped into the British public, prompting many to prefer closer ties with Europe over alignment with the US. Notably, the survey's most striking finding centers on the strong desire of most Britons for unfettered movement within the EU and access to a unified market governed by single regulations. The numbers leave little doubt: the British public wants change.

When asked by the European Council on Foreign Relations, "Would you like British citizens to be able to move freely throughout Europe, and for European citizens to move freely in the UK?" 68% of Britons responded positively, 14% were undecided, and 18% opposed freedom of movement. These figures starkly contrast with the results of the 2016 referendum.

Many Europeans shared the sentiments of their British counterparts: 45% of Germans expressed a desire for closer ties with the UK, as did 44% of Poles, 41% of Spaniards, 40% of Italians, and 34% of French respondents. While it is well-known that surveys do not change reality—and often fail to fully reflect it—it is difficult to ignore the possibility that the British government might reconsider the balance of power on the continent. Perhaps even beyond.

The post Survey: Most Britons want to rejoin EU appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

If we thought the fall of the Assad regime would only impact Syria or the fate of the Middle East, we were wrong—dramatically so. Just days after the rebels seized control of Damascus, numerous European countries announced the suspension of all asylum applications submitted by Syrian citizens.

Berlin was the first to declare that it would no longer accept Syrian refugees, setting off a rapid chain reaction. Vienna, Brussels, Rome, Athens, Copenhagen, Oslo, Helsinki, and Amsterdam announced yesterday (Monday) that they too would follow Germany's lead and halt refugee admissions for the time being.

Unlike the aforementioned countries, France stated it is still deliberating on the matter, while Spain firmly opposed the decision. Meanwhile, the UK, no longer part of the European Union, announced it would not allow Syrian refugees to enter its borders until further notice.

This controversial decision, which sparked outrage in some countries and gained full support in others, affects not only the thousands of asylum requests submitted in the past two days by those fleeing Syria's historic regime change but also the tens of thousands of pending applications in recent years.

While the trend among European nations appears consistent and coordinated, the European Commission has opted not to take a clear stance on the complex issue, choosing instead to delay any discussion on the implications of Assad's fall to a later date. In other words: see no evil, hear no evil.

In the meantime, Europe is becoming increasingly volatile. The Syrian revolution may have raised red flags for several governments, but it has not addressed the flawed immigration policies that persist. These policies have prompted countries like Italy and France to promote special programs, aimed at preventing terrorism from taking root.

Focusing on Syrian migrants alone, the UN refugee agency estimates that approximately 12 million people were displaced over the past decade—6.8 million internally within Syria and 5.2 million who fled to neighboring countries: 3 million to Turkey, 770,000 to Lebanon, 620,000 to Jordan, 300,000 to Iraq, and 150,000 to Egypt.

Among EU member states, Germany hosts the largest number of Syrian refugees. At the peak of the civil war, former Chancellor Angela Merkel welcomed no fewer than one million refugees, during a time when Assad's regime was responsible for over half a million deaths.

Syrians have been the largest group of asylum seekers in the EU every year since 2013. The number of asylum applications from Syrians rose from 131,790 in 2022 to 183,035 in 2023, representing a concerning 17.5% of total asylum seekers.

Unlike the compassionate response to the outbreak of the Syrian civil war, the global community appears to have taken a different approach this time. While in 2011, nations rallied to aid victims of the war, the fall of Assad has not prompted world leaders to open their borders or risk their citizens' security.

This shift is evident not only in Europe but also in the US. Former President Donald Trump, upon his election, vowed: "I will end the influx of migrants and restore the American dream." Many Arab states have also closed their doors to new refugees. Among Middle Eastern nations that have shut their borders are Lebanon and Jordan.

The post Divided Europe: What to do with the Syrian refugees? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Donald Trump resonated with Israel's supporters when he posted on his social media platform TRUTH Social Tuesday: "Everybody is talking about the hostages who are being held so violently, inhumanely, and against the will of the entire world, in the Middle East – but it's all talk, and no action! If the hostages are not released prior to January 20, 2025, the date that I proudly assume office as President of the United States, there will be ALL HELL TO PAY in the Middle East, and for those in charge who perpetrated these atrocities against humanity."

After a year of political, social, and military struggle to bring the hostages home, the president-elect has once again brought global attention to this burning issue, which has not received adequate media coverage worldwide. What lies behind this threat? Does Trump's statement have concrete strategic backing, or does the incoming president believe that words alone can create deterrence?

"From our experience with the president, it starts with a post and then develops into strategy," explains Rotem Oreg, an American politics expert and director of the LIBRAEL foundation, in an interview with Makor Rishon. "This characterized his first administration, but now we're seeing him come more organized and prepared. This is particularly evident in how he's appointing people around him – importantly, people with more developed worldviews. The main challenge is actually finding effective pressure points, as it's clear to everyone that Americans won't directly intervene in Gaza. If anyone has such fantasies, they should abandon them."

Regarding realistic scenarios, Oreg suggests that "Trump might give Israel more operational freedom, but then the question becomes what haven't we already done that could help. His threat might also translate into support for specific Israeli actions against Hamas that could potentially change the dynamics."

This isn't the first time the president-elect has raised the hostage issue. Throughout his White House campaign, Trump repeatedly called for their release. However, his latest statement appears considerably more forceful than previous ones. "There's a process aimed at helping Trump understand that he has an opportunity here to make history and get credit," Oreg explains. "When I met with advisers to senior officials in the new administration, I told them his way to brand this mission is to succeed where Biden failed. Biden spent more than a year trying to bring the hostages home without success, and Trump might actually accomplish it.

"The question is whether the incoming president is pursuing this because he sees potential for credit, which is what interests him, or if, like with North Korea, he'll hit a wall and back off. Trump needs to see that the hostage struggle benefits him somehow. As long as figures in Israel and the United States keep telling him that working for their release is important, as long as they continue to thank him for his involvement, Trump will keep participating in the mission."

How will the incoming president's post actually influence the terrorist organization? According to Oreg, "Hamas is less affected by American threats because they've already taken enough hits. The more someone is beaten, the less they have to lose, and this applies to terrorist organizations too. State actors like Iran are usually more sensitive to such threats because they have more assets to lose." This offers little encouragement to those who believed the American president's words would transform the Middle East.

Alternatively, journalist and Middle East researcher Edy Cohen told Makor Rishon that "Trump's threats aren't new; he's said these things before and is now naturally escalating the tone. However, I don't buy them. Actually, Hezbollah's defeat, the split battlefronts, the expulsion of Hamas leaders from Qatar, the Democrats' loss, Trump's rise, the elimination of Nasrallah and Sinwar, the ceasefire agreement – all these constitute a mortal blow to Hamas."

The researcher argues that the possibility of Hamas releasing the 101 hostages isn't far-fetched. "The organization is losing legitimacy even in Arab countries that previously supported it, and this plays much more in our favor than Trump's post. It's no coincidence that Hamas is now releasing more hostage videos – they want movement. They want to end the war."

The post How Trump's Hamas ultimatum could shape Mideast strategy appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.