Anyone who wishes can rage against the victors and once again remind everyone how awful Mamdani is. In the days before the race, the young, inexperienced candidate did everything he could to signal that he had no intention of softening his most extreme positions. On the contrary: he spent the final stretch of the campaign in the company of Jeremy Corbyn, the former British Labour leader ousted over rampant antisemitism.

To the million New Yorkers who voted for Mamdani, none of that mattered. Statements such as "When the boot of the NYPD is on your neck, it's been laced by the IDF," meant to blame Israel for all of America's real and imagined evils, only boosted his standing.

But the real story of these elections isn't the winners, it's the losers.

The power of a shout

How did the Republicans suffer such a crushing defeat? In the coming weeks we'll hear countless explanations, hopefully backed by turnout data. But anyone looking for one central cause need not look far: Republicans were beaten because, for months, the party has been waging what increasingly looks like a civil war within its own ranks.

Their leader, President Donald Trump, remains as popular as ever, even as Washington's prolonged paralysis eats away at public support. The federal government, for example, has been shut down for weeks due to the parties' failure to agree on a budget. But Trump, for better or worse, is an unconventional candidate. He was elected despite—and not because of—the Republican Party, and brought with him a broad, diverse coalition of voters who see him, not the party brand, as their champion. With three years left in his term and no legal path to run for a third, the race to succeed him has already begun.

This time, though, the battle is not only over who will be the next Republican nominee after Trump. It's about what the party itself will become.

On one side stand figures like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who promise a return to classical conservatism: a muscular foreign policy, aggressive free-market economics, and an unrelenting fight against the progressive chaos that took root in America under Barack Obama and Joe Biden. On the other side are candidates like Vice President J.D. Vance, pulling the party in a very different direction.

A troubling example of that direction came just last week. Vance spoke at a Turning Point USA event, the conservative movement founded by his late friend Charlie Kirk, who was murdered earlier this year by a left-wing gunman. A student in the audience asked Vance: "I'm a Christian," he said, "and I don't understand why we support Israel, a Jewish state that doesn't seem to share our values."

Vance could have easily explained the importance of the US-Israel strategic alliance. He could have emphasized the obvious point that, in a war between a Jewish democracy and an Islamist terrorist organization, there should be no question where America stands. Instead, Vance mumbled something about Trump and how Israel doesn't tell him what to do, then veered into theology: "The reality is that Jews don't believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah," said Vance, a Catholic convert baptized in 2019. "My approach has always been that if we have disagreements, we should discuss them publicly."

Imagine for a moment a serious presidential candidate declaring that Americans should publicly debate whether Catholic politicians can be trusted to represent voters rather than follow the pope's orders from Rome. Or whether Hindus, who don't believe in one God, should be allowed to run for office. Such questions sound absurd, and rightly so. The separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of the American constitution. So what made the vice president, one of the GOP's highest-ranking figures, think that the right response to a political question was to turn it into a religious one?

The answer, in short, is Tucker Carlson.

The popular television host was ousted from Fox News in 2023 under complex circumstances. He launched his own podcast and wasted no time steering it in a new ideological direction. In February 2024 he traveled to Moscow for a warm interview with Vladimir Putin, who claimed, among other things, that Poland was to blame for the Nazi invasion in World War II and that Volodymyr Zelensky was the villain in his war with Ukraine. Carlson then toured Moscow's subway and shops, telling his audience that such order and cleanliness couldn't be found in any American city.

Some raised eyebrows, lavish praise for Russia and propaganda that demeaned the US hardly sound conservative. But Carlson was just getting started. Months before the presidential election, he hosted online influencer Darryl Cooper, who told viewers that Hitler was the real victim of World War II and that Winston Churchill refused to compromise with the "peace-loving" German chancellor only because a small group of people—no need to specify who, but they control the banks and the media—pressured him.

Last month, Carlson invited an even viler guest: Nick Fuentes, a social-media personality who has repeatedly expressed admiration for Hitler and Stalin.

What drove the supposedly conservative pundit to such extremes? The reasons are many, but the overall direction is clear: Carlson, and now Vance after him, understand that to capture the imagination of young and apathetic voters, one must sound extreme and exciting.

Replacing one madness with another

Some call this trend the woke right: just as the progressive left embraces absurd ideas, like denying biological reality and claiming men can become women and vice versa, the right is now flirting with its own delusions. If the left compares every conservative to Hitler, the right responds by admiring Hitler himself. If the left denounces public expressions of faith, the right flaunts overtly religious dogma.

Is this strategy sustainable? Sadly, for now, yes. Mamdani, a textbook representative of left-wing wokeness, won 81 percent of the vote among young women aged 18 to 29 in New York. Carlson, the face of right-wing wokeness, has surpassed media giants like Joe Rogan and taken his podcast to the top of the US ratings. Voters—especially younger ones—are flocking to the loudest, most extreme voices on both sides, a reality that no serious politician can ignore.

Instead of governing or even trying to beat the Democrats, Republicans are spending more and more time reacting to provocations from Carlson and his allies.

Just last month, Kevin Roberts, head of the leading conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, released a fiery video defending Carlson, claiming the right must not bow to the left's "cancel culture" and declaring his unwavering support for his friend. Almost immediately, politicians, columnists, and major conservative donors pushed back, rightly arguing that conservatives must be clear about what they stand for. There is nothing conservative, they said, about backing a demagogue who boosts his profile by promoting ideas, such as support for Russia and Iran or chummy interviews with neo-Nazis, that have nothing to do with mainstream Republican values.

To his credit, Roberts listened, apologized, and fired the young staffer responsible for the pro-Carlson video. But the damage was done. In the critical weeks before key elections, Republicans focused not on policy or candidates but on internal feuds that signaled to voters that the party had lost its way.

And that process is deeply troubling.

Voters who have traditionally backed Democrats but are repelled by radicals like Mamdani looked naturally to the GOP, as one of only two parties in a binary system, and wondered if they might find their new political home there. But a Republican Party that seems intent on signaling that its next leader could embrace dangerous, delusional, anti-American ideas has abandoned the moderate center. The same holds true on the other side: any Republican seeking refuge from today's madness finds only a different flavor of madness across the aisle.

The question of price

The consequences of this spiral were visible this week at the ballot box. In New York—where affluent, highly educated voters, the classic profile of woke leftists, abound—the radical candidate swept over a million votes. Elsewhere, voters recoiled from the GOP's recent turmoil and placed their trust in uninspiring but steady Democratic candidates.

Since this internal civil war shows no sign of ending, it's not hard to imagine a similar defeat awaiting conservatives in next year's far more consequential elections. One can only hope that someone in the party will finally read the map correctly and make the effort to define what Republicans actually believe in. If that doesn't happen, the GOP will be left with only the loudest fringe voices, and a shrinking voter base.

Still, there is another possibility. The voices already warning against extremism, like Texas Senator Ted Cruz, might yet lead a rare process in global politics: one in which candidates are required not merely to throw around slogans and promises but to confront serious questions honestly and explain, clearly and credibly, what they truly stand for.

The post Why does the US keep producing Mamdanis? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Anyone wanting to protest the winners is welcome to remind everyone, for the who-knows-how-many-th time, how terrible and threatening Mamdani is. In the days leading up to the race, the young and inexperienced candidate did everything possible to signal to his opponents that he had no intention of compromising on his most extreme positions. On the contrary, Mamdani spent the race's final stretch in the company of Jeremy Corbyn, who was, as you'll recall, ousted from his position as leader of Britain's Labour Party due to excessive and enthusiastic antisemitism. For the million New Yorkers who voted for Mamdani, all this made no difference. Statements like "When the boot of the NYPD is on your neck, it's been laced by the IDF," whose sole purpose is blaming Israel for all of America's evils, real and imagined alike, only raised Mamdani's profile.

The post How the Republicans lost appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

There isn't much to recount from Mamdani's résumé. Born in Uganda in 1991, he's the son of a Columbia University professor and acclaimed filmmaker Mira Nair. After an unsuccessful stint as a rapper, he dove headfirst into radical left-wing politics and gained notoriety as an outspoken anti-Israel activist during college. Five years ago, he was elected to the New York State Assembly, where he made little impression. But since announcing his mayoral candidacy, his star has been rising fast.

Why? Certainly not due to experience, especially considering his main opponent, Andrew Cuomo, is a seasoned politician and former New York governor with deep roots in the Democratic Party. Nor is it because of his platform: Mamdani advocates for full-fledged communism, including state-run stores distributing free food based on need, and a total rent freeze for New Yorkers, regardless of market dynamics.

Mamdani ran a shrewd campaign, securing just over 400,000 votes. But will that be enough come the general election in November? That's a more complex question. With 4.7 million registered voters in New York City, Mamdani's primary win reflects only about 9.1% of the electorate. Cuomo, the main rival he defeated, had been politically weakened by a slew of scandals, including numerous sexual harassment allegations and a widely criticized handling of the COVID-19 crisis, and didn't put much effort into campaigning. While Mamdani was canvassing neighborhoods flanked by influencers and photographers, Cuomo acted as if victory was a given, spending more time attacking former President Donald Trump than outlining a vision for New Yorkers.

Current Mayor Eric Adams, meanwhile, may find some hope. After losing support from his party, Adams is now running as an independent. His recent record is notable, homicides in the city dropped by 34% in the first quarter of the year. And the data shows that Mamdani's base isn't primarily Black or Hispanic voters, but rather affluent, highly educated young white people, the children of privilege who dabble in radical politics with little concern for real-world consequences. Trump himself demonstrated last November that many New Yorkers are tired of progressive extremism, gaining notable support among Hispanics for his hardline stance on illegal immigration. It's likely that by November, more residents will awaken and head to the polls. In 2021, only 23% of eligible voters cast ballots, not necessarily a favorable sign for Mamdani.

Furthermore, due to a variety of historical and political factors, New York City relies heavily on the state government, meaning the mayor has limited power without the governor's backing. That dynamic could soon shift: current Governor Kathy Hochul is a deeply unpopular figure who took office after Cuomo's disgraceful resignation. The leading Republican challenger is likely Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, who gained national attention for launching a probe into antisemitism at elite US universities, a campaign that led to several university presidents stepping down. If Stefanik wins, plausible in a state with a substantial conservative base, any future mayor would be forced to curb radical policies.

Politics of hate

Mamdani's rise is concerning, but it's not cause for panic. Still, one must ask: what explains his meteoric political ascent? The answer is as troubling as it is simple, hatred of Israel.

Mamdani's political debut came via Students for Justice in Palestine, a radical group with ties to the terrorist organization Hamas, known for orchestrating violent campus protests across the US. His popularity surged when he refused to apologize for using the slogan "Globalize the Intifada." Repeatedly asked whether he considered calls for an intifada against Jews, Israelis, and their supporters to be incitement to violence, Mamdani replied that it was merely a legitimate expression of support for Palestinian rights. In today's American political climate, such a position is a surefire way to rally the activist base. And not only on the left: in recent weeks, the far-right has also coalesced around virulent antisemitism. What began as tepid criticism of potential US involvement in an Israeli strike on Iran has morphed into a frenzy of open Jew-hatred.

To understand the moment, it's worth looking back at late 19th-century France. At the time, the republic wasn't merely split along political lines, but between entirely different worldviews. Most French citizens supported secular liberalism; the fringes leaned either toward communism or ultranationalist Catholicism. Seeking a scapegoat, right-wing agitators falsely accused Jewish officer Alfred Dreyfus, and by extension all Jews, of treason. The left joined in, and France spent nearly a decade in turmoil, not only fighting for Dreyfus's exoneration but also for the soul of the republic. In the end, the moderates triumphed, and the hatemongers ended in disgrace.

A peculiar faith

What unites Americans more than anything is a shared belief in their nation's exceptionalism, the idea that the US has a divinely inspired mission to shape the course of human history. Polls consistently show that at least 73% of Americans believe in "American exceptionalism," a concept famously captured by President Abraham Lincoln, who called Americans "the almost chosen people." If Jews are the chosen people, Americans see themselves as not far behind, destined to bring peace and prosperity to the world.

To both the far left and far right, this belief is anathema. Former President Barack Obama exemplified this view, asserting that all countries are equal and that the US should not assert dominance. That worldview led him to elevate Iran's status in the Middle East, foreign policy, to Obama, meant turning enemies into allies, even at the cost of abandoning unilateral strength.

Figures like Tucker Carlson and Mamdani are ideological heirs to Obama. Regardless of their partisan labels, they share a deep conviction that America must shed its theological delusions of grandeur. That's why Carlson produced glowing reports about Russia, extolling the Moscow subway while ignoring political repression and the brutal war in Ukraine. The goal was clear: convince Americans they are not special.

But Americans aren't buying it. Exceptionalism remains central to the national ethos. The Hebrew term for the country, "Artzot HaBrit" or "the United States", echoes the biblical covenant. If your worldview runs counter to this deep-seated belief, the fallback strategy, as in Dreyfus-era France, is to blame the Jews. But just like then, it's a doomed tactic. Axios's White House correspondent recently shared polling data showing that efforts to portray Trump as beholden to Jewish interests have failed. Among those who voted for him in 2024, 79% support sending arms to Israel, 72% back US intervention in a war against Iran to aid Israel, and 80% believe Iran is hostile to US interests.

In other words, if the recent surge in antisemitism on the right has accomplished anything, it's to galvanize a solid pro-Israel majority, one that sees US power not as original sin, but as a force for good.

That likely holds true on the left as well. By November, we may see what we didn't this past week in New York: sensible voters choosing a sensible candidate. One can only hope that Mamdani's political career ends as quickly and ignominiously as his failed rap venture. A mayor hostile to Israel would indeed be a serious issue in a city with one of the world's largest Jewish populations. But perhaps the visible, repellent nature of today's antisemitism is a sign that its champions are on the defensive.

The post The apple falls: Intifada supporter poised to take over New York appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

It will be the policy of the United States to fight antisemitism vigorously, and to use all legal means at our disposal to prosecute, remove, or otherwise hold accountable those who commit unlawful acts of harassment and violence motivated by antisemitism.

This unequivocal declaration comes from President Donald Trump's executive order issued earlier this month. The order gives all federal agencies exactly 60 days to propose new and muscular ways to eradicate the meteoric rise in antisemitism in the US. In the year and a half since the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, the number of antisemitic incidents in the US, according to Anti-Defamation League data, has surged by over 200%, with more than 10,000 cases of harassment, threats, vandalism and outright violence against Jews. Of these, over 2,000 incidents occurred on university campuses – an increase of nearly 500%.

To understand why Trump's executive order is so important, and what exactly it can do, we must first understand the reality that preceded the election of the 47th president, namely Joe Biden's years in the White House.

Black and white

According to many American commentators, the former vice president's path to the Oval Office began to be paved more vigorously in the summer of 2020, when a white police officer named Derek Chauvin used unreasonable force, causing the death of a black detainee named George Floyd. Almost overnight, massive riots erupted in thousands of US cities, with dozens killed and over a billion dollars in property damage. The riots were led by members of a relatively new movement called Black Lives Matter, which maintained deliberate ambiguity about its goals, leadership, or any other transparency details expected of a public organization. Members of the movement accused white America of systemic racism and demanded far-reaching changes, chief among them the complete abolition of all police forces whatsoever, under the slogan "Defund the Police."

As ridiculous as it may seem, the idea gained traction, and between Floyd's killing in May 2020 and December of that year, Black Lives Matter raised more than $10 billion, including from major corporations and large donors to the Democratic Party. The Democrats, for their part, immediately rallied to the flag, praising the movement and promising to continue promoting its goals.

It didn't matter that reports from some brave and independent media outlets showed that the movement's leaders were using the funds mainly to buy themselves luxurious mansions. It didn't matter that the movement's official website clashed not only with Jews but also with the institution of the family, which – the movement declared – must be dismantled since every family is oppressive by its very nature, and therefore children should only be raised in communal collectives. It didn't matter that large cities that implemented the promise to dismantle the police were immediately flooded with unprecedented waves of crime and violence. It also didn't matter that the narrative that ignited the movement, that of police violence against blacks, was blatantly false:

Since 2015, when the US began collecting precise data on policing, there have been about 10 million arrests per year, and exactly 14 unarmed black people were shot dead by police officers. Each of these cases can be examined individually, and ways can be suggested to reduce shooting of innocents, but it cannot be claimed, as members of Black Lives Matter and their associates in the Democratic Party did, that this is an epidemic of racism and violence.

None of the above data particularly interested Joe Biden and his colleagues. The presidential candidate called it a "historic movement for justice" and promised to support it and its goals. He did not lie: on his first day as president, he signed Executive Order 13,985, which promised to allocate significant resources to diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI. Those who supported the president and his policies claimed that this was nothing less than a revolution to finally eradicate the racism that pervades American society. The less enthusiastic, on the other hand, argued that while there is room for improvement, America in 2020 is light years away from that of the 50s or 60s, and that allocating significant resources to fight a problem that is not really noticeable will only cause social upheaval.

Almost overnight, a significant part of American institutions – giant corporations, universities and the federal government itself – aligned with the Biden administration and began to divert significant budgets, partly encouraged by the administration, to DEI. The University of Pennsylvania, for example, announced in 2020 an initiative called Projects for Progress, designed to invest vast resources in everything related to fighting all types of discrimination, real or imagined. Or, more accurately, almost all types of discrimination. "After DEI took hold at Penn, anti-Semitic fervor on campus intensified," said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, former vice dean of the university's medical school. In an article in City Journal, Goldfarb explained that all this is no coincidence. "At the heart of DEI is a simple binary: the world is divided between oppressors and the oppressed. Proponents of DEI cast white people as oppressors and black people as the oppressed. While they apply this frame primarily to America, they often apply it to Israel, too. Apparently, Israel is a bastion of Jewish whiteness, with a racist commitment to shattering the lives of nonwhite Palestinians."

Danger on campuses

Unfortunately, quite a few data support this assumption. In 2021, for example, Jay Greene, a fellow at the prestigious Heritage Foundation research institute, examined the social media accounts of 750 people holding key positions in DEI departments at 65 American universities, and found not only that almost all of them frequently shared content about Israel – despite the fact that the Jewish state, needless to say, is not supposed to play a significant role in the lives of those whose job definition is to ensure equality on campuses thousands of kilometers away from the Gaza Strip – but also that 96% of all the content they shared about Israel was not only extremely critical but also bordered on antisemitism.

A rare glimpse into the antisemitism of the DEI world was provided by Tabia Lee, a black non-Jewish woman who in 2021 was hired to lead the DEI efforts of De Anza College in Northern California. In an article she wrote for the New York Post after her dismissal in 2023, Lee claimed that she was horrified, when she arrived at the college, to experience an atmosphere of antisemitic incitement and agitation. When she told her colleagues that Jewish students deserve treatment exactly like any other minority group, they replied that this was not true because Jews are Zionists, Zionism is racism and white supremacy, and therefore care should be taken, if Jewish events are allowed to take place at the college at all, that these events focus on Israeli injustices against Palestinians. Lee was appalled and immediately demanded that the college officially condemn antisemitism. The college leadership refused, and after students and colleagues in the DEI department called her derogatory names like "filthy Zionist," Lee lost her job.

The picture she painted is painful and accurate. Before Biden's election, antisemitism on campuses was limited to a few. After the Democrats' return to the White House, every university began establishing DEI departments at a dizzying pace, and staffed them with faculty members who saw hatred of Israel not only as a legitimate opinion but also as a moral duty of anyone who considers themselves a good progressive. This is why so few universities lifted a finger after October 7, when students raised Hamas and Hezbollah flags, set up tents in the heart of the campus, and attacked their Jewish friends: antisemitism in universities was the result of years of built-in policy, not a momentary and surprising outbreak.

Just as university presidents turned a blind eye to antisemitism – a blindness that cost some of them, including the presidents of the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard and Columbia, their jobs, not to mention vast sums in donations from Jewish supporters – so did the Democrats. At the end of last year, for example, Republican lawmakers on the Congressional Education Committee published a 300-page report on the state of antisemitism in universities. The report summarized a year of interviews with hundreds of people, as well as a thorough examination of 400,000 pages of internal documents at prestigious institutions such as those of the Ivy League. One of the most incriminating findings published in the report was a transcript of a conversation between Minouche Shafik, former president of Columbia University, with David Greenwald and Claire Shipman, the co-chairs of the university's board of trustees.

Shafik told Greenwald and Shipman about a conversation she had with Chuck Schumer, the Democratic senator from New York and the Democratic majority leader in the Senate. Shafik asked Schumer, the highest-ranking Jewish politician in the US, what he thought the university should do with pro-Hamas students who disrupt studies on campus and harass Jews. And Schumer, as Shafik reported, said the university should do nothing, as antisemitism is a political issue that only interests Republicans. Schumer, of course, denied the report, but it's hard to imagine why an experienced leader like Shafik would lie about such a matter in an internal conversation with her confidants. And even if the report is not accurate, it cannot be denied that the Biden administration did little, if anything, to ensure the safety of Jewish students on American campuses.

Which brings us back to Trump.

War on DEI

In the first weeks of his second term, Trump declared all-out war on DEI. He not only declared that every federal agency must immediately dismantle all DEI departments established in recent years, but also instructed the federal government to identify and immediately combat all DEI initiatives in the private sector that led to reverse discrimination. Does such discrimination exist? The answer can be inferred from the panic that gripped giant companies like Facebook, Google, Disney, and others, which rushed to immediately dismantle DEI initiatives that just a few months ago boasted hundreds of employees and budgets of millions of dollars. It's time, the president declared in several interviews, to build an American society "color-blind and based on abilities, not identities."

And nowhere will this change be felt more prominently than in American universities: at least 240 of them in 36 states have announced, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education, a publication that tracks university affairs, the cancellation of all or a significant part of their DEI initiatives. Public universities in North Carolina, for example, announced this week the cancellation of the requirement to take courses dealing with DEI to be eligible for a bachelor's degree, and the University of Colorado removed the page dealing with DEI from its official website. But many other universities declared war on the president and his policies, and vowed to continue on their path until further notice. The president of Princeton University, for example, Christopher Eisgruber, chose the famous British slogan from World War II – Keep Calm and Carry On – which left no doubt as to who are the good guys here and who are the potential destroyers of democracy. The university, he made clear, will continue with its DEI initiatives until all the lawsuits recently filed against Trump and his presidential orders are resolved in court.

But it's likely that Eisgruber and his fellow travelers will soon have to recalculate their route. The president and his people, explained Asaf Romirowsky, CEO of two influential academic associations – "Scholars for Peace in the Middle East" and "the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa" – are taking campus antisemitism extremely seriously, and intend to use far-reaching measures to ensure that Hamas and Hezbollah supporters face real punishments.

"Trump's executive order regarding antisemitism," Romirowsky told Israel Hayom, "makes it very clear which way the wind is blowing. It specifically mentions US immigration laws, which order the immediate deportation of any non-citizen who supports or encourages organizations defined as terrorist organizations."

Since a significant number of the loudest anti-Jewish activists on campuses are foreign students staying in the US on student visas, Romirowsky explained that it's likely the administration will demand their immediate deportation. And this, it's also likely, will put universities in a sensitive position: Columbia, for example, did everything in its power to avoid identifying the students who participated in the antisemitic riots on campus last year, and ordered a brief investigation that was closed after six days claiming it failed to identify any of the students guilty of disturbing the peace. Given the fact that most of the rioters were documented in videos uploaded to social media, the claim is patently ridiculous; but the university administration knows that if it points to names, and students are deported as a result, it will have to deal not only with internal riots but also with a potentially huge loss of income: as of 2023, 56% of Columbia's students were foreign students, who usually pay full tuition. The university, then, is not eager to do anything that might lead to harming this golden goose.

Through the pocket

Unfortunately for them, Romirowsky explained, Trump has even sharper tools to hit universities' pockets. "Columbia alone," he said, "received more than $6 billion from the federal government in the last five years in various grants. If Trump decides not to approve budgets for any academic institution that doesn't comply with the law, it will mean the loss of vast sums."

Trump can also significantly affect donations that constitute the bulk of universities' capital. Columbia, for example, has a treasure chest of about $14.8 billion, managed in various investment funds. During his first term, Trump passed a law that taxed about 1.4% of the investment income of universities whose total endowment exceeds $500,000 per student, which mainly affected large and wealthy universities. Last week, Congressman Mike Lawler, close to Trump, introduced a bill to raise the tax rate on investment income of wealthy universities to 10%.

"Universities need to understand that the president and his people didn't come to play games," Romirowsky said. "When violent demonstrators impose terror against Jews on campus, and when there's no real freedom of expression for anyone who supports Israel, our universities are in danger of turning from acclaimed academic institutions into nests of hatred and violence. The previous administration saw this process happening and encouraged it. The current administration is committed to doing everything to change direction and protect the core values that have made the US and its universities renowned worldwide."

Romirowsky added that he expects another series of steps from the administration, including real investigations against anyone who refuses to enforce the law and ensure the safety of Jewish students. He also said he hopes to see the administration taking sanctions against Qatar, which has invested $4.7 billion in recent decades in American universities, making the country the largest foreign donor to higher education in the US. Qatari money, Romirowsky explained, very often leads to appointments with extreme antisemitic positions, as well as curricula that present Israel in a distorted and terrible light.

"It's inconceivable that a country that supports terrorist organizations like Hamas and continues to fund America's sworn enemies should have such extensive influence on what American students know and think about the world."

Judging by the output of recent weeks, Trump understands all these threats very well. And unlike his predecessor in office, he takes them seriously.

The post How Biden fueled a 200% surge in antisemitism appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

When Bernard-Henri Lévy landed at Ben-Gurion Airport on Oct. 8, 2023, he had spent the previous 24 hours desperately searching for any available flight to Israel. Upon arrival, he immediately headed south to Kfar Aza, becoming the first international journalist to document both the atrocities and acts of courage on the ground. His accounts carried particular weight given his stature as France's preeminent philosopher, globally respected intellectual, and unwavering advocate for human rights worldwide.

Lévy built his reputation through direct engagement with the world's most pressing conflicts: making frequent trips to Ukraine's frontlines while producing powerful documentaries about Russian aggression and Ukrainian resistance, often under active shelling; championing Kurdish independence amid fierce battles; and bearing witness in Libya, Nigeria, and Armenia. Wherever oppression surfaces, Lévy trades the comfort of his Paris residence to stand alongside those fighting for freedom. Israel's struggle against the Hamas terror group, he has long argued, represents a crucial battle in the free world's resistance against forces threatening to overwhelm it.

These themes animate Lévy's compelling new book "The Loneliness of Israel." Given his prominence – he writes columns for several of the world's leading newspapers and maintains direct access to global leaders – the book garnered enthusiastic reviews and quickly sold out its first printing. To build on this momentum, his publisher, Wicked Son, sought to place an advertisement in "Shelf Awareness," an influential industry newsletter reaching 600,000 readers, primarily bookstore owners and managers. Initially, the publication's advertising representative agreed to run the ad within days.

However, the representative soon contacted Lévy's publisher to announce the advertisement's rejection and promise an immediate refund. The reason? The ad would cause "unwanted trouble" for their customers. When Melanie Notkin, representing the publisher, pressed for clarification, she recorded a conversation that merits careful attention for its surreal quality: the mere presence of "Israel" in a pro-Israel book's title would provoke anti-Israel elements within publishing, making the ad untenable. Despite protests, the rejection stood firm, prompting Lévy to pen an incensed response in The Wall Street Journal.

"For the first time in my life," he wrote, "I have been censored... It seems that no Jewish author, no one remotely connected to Judaism, is safe from this kind of exclusion.

The March of Folly

Lévy's assessment proved prescient. A sampling of incidents from just the past year demonstrates how American publishing – an industry that achieved its zenith in the 1950s and 60s under significant Jewish leadership – has devolved into an openly antisemitic environment that enables persecution of Jews without pretense.

Consider Elisa Albert, a progressive feminist author. In September, she welcomed an invitation from New York State's prestigious literary festival to moderate a panel on adolescent girls. Shortly before the event, however, an organizer regretfully informed her that fellow panelists – acclaimed authors Aisha Abdel Gawad and Lisa Ko – had withdrawn, refusing to share a platform with a "Zionist."

Earlier this year, James Kirchick, a leading Jewish journalist in America, published an exposé in The New York Times revealing the crisis's true depth. Just as in McCarthy's darkest days, the industry now maintains blacklists of those deemed unemployable: Kirchick uncovered a list of over 200 editors, writers, and industry professionals suspected of excessive Jewish pride, complete with color coding to denote varying degrees of Zionism and support for Israel. Author Emily St. John Mandel, for instance, earned the dreaded "red" classification as a "Zionist" because, according to the list's anonymous creators, she "frequently visits Israel and speaks positively about these visits." Writer Kristin Hannah received the same designation for sharing a Magen David Adom donation link after Hamas' attack. And Gabrielle Zevin – author of bestsellers "Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow" and "Young Jane Young" – was placed in a slightly lower category of Israel supporters. Her offense? Speaking at a local chapter of Hadassah women's organization.

Predictably, the list's author, known on social media only as Amina, encourages followers to boycott everyone mentioned. Conversations with various publishing house editors suggest the list has achieved its intended effect. One literary agent, speaking anonymously for fear of professional retaliation, told Kirchick, "Today it takes real courage to publish proudly Jewish authors or books about the Jewish experience. If you believe in Israel's right to exist, the industry now considers it appropriate and desirable to completely cancel you." Another author, also requesting anonymity, expressed concern that despite his new book containing no Jewish themes, reviewers and readers might boycott him simply for being proudly Jewish and appearing on one of these defamatory lists of Jewish authors.

"We've been hearing about such lists for months," said Naomi Firestone-Teeter, CEO of the Jewish Book Council, which promotes Jewish books and authors. "It's chilling." In a recent official statement, another council board member, Elisa Spungen Bildner, declared that such lists "echo the 1930s. Calls to boycott Jewish writers or books are equivalent to book burning."

Yet these lists gain momentum, with editors and writers reporting, in off-the-record conversations, deteriorating treatment from colleagues: one described a coworker blocking her on all social media and ceasing email responses, another mentioned sudden exclusion from departmental meetings, and another recounted a tearful call from her agent warning that continuing to hold "problematic" positions would force termination of their relationship.

The Witch Hunt

This hostile atmosphere peaked at the National Book Award ceremony, the industry's Oscar equivalent honoring each year's most distinguished authors. In an upscale Manhattan venue, publishing's elite gathered to hear jokes from film star Kate McKinnon ("Barbie") and songs from Jon Batiste, house musician for America's most popular late-night show – "The Late Show With Stephen Colbert." Award recipients, one after another, mounted the stage to speak not about their work or any other global injustice, but about Israel. At least two winners claimed from the podium that genocide was occurring in Gaza. "I hope each of us can love ourselves enough," declared another winner, "to rise up and ensure the genocide stops." The hostages, needless to say, went unmentioned, as did Oct. 7 victims. When a senior Jewish editor stood to forcefully remind the audience about Israeli children still in Gaza captivity, she received a polite but firm request to leave the hall immediately.

This same animosity infected PEN America, perhaps the country's largest and most influential writers' organization. Founded in 1922 by literary giants like Willa Cather, Eugene O'Neill, and Robert Frost, PEN America aimed to protect writers' free expression and ensure the publishing industry embraced diverse viewpoints without fear of persecution or censorship. But times, as one beloved Jewish poet wrote, are changing: this February, over 1,500 organization members signed a letter demanding immediate condemnation of Israel and calling on the organization to "wake from its passive, lukewarm, fence-sitting, self-satisfied and mediocre approach and take concrete steps against Israel's genocide in Gaza." After accusing Israel of systematic and deliberate murder without any factual support from writers or journalists, the letter left little doubt about required action, "We demand PEN America issue an official condemnation naming the killers exactly: Israel, a colonialist Zionist entity funded by the US government."

Again, one might expect a serious organization to state unequivocally that anyone truly committed to literature cannot engage in one-sided propaganda, especially when that side represents a murderous terrorist organization. One might expect champions of free expression to rise against those who persecute others for their identity or beliefs. One might expect a forceful statement that boycotts fundamentally contradict art's universal spirit, which should evoke common human emotions and bridge all divides. But PEN America did none of this. They didn't even defend themselves by citing their numerous anti-Israel statements. Instead, the organization capitulated to pressure and issued a sharp statement calling for immediate ceasefire.

Even this proved insufficient: more than half the organization's writer and editor members announced they would refuse nomination for PEN America's official awards, the organization's annual crown jewel. "Writers with conscience," several departing members wrote in an official statement, "don't debate facts. There is truth and there is fiction, and the truth is that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza." And PEN America, they continued, "normalizes genocide" by "giving voice to Zionists." The departing members also demanded immediate termination of the organization's head, Susan Nossel, a Jewish woman, due to her "long-standing commitment to Zionism." The upheaval achieved its goal: for the first time in almost three decades, the organization announced cancellation of its main festival due to protests.

Seize the Day

"There's no question that Jews are being excluded from the publishing industry at every level and rank – from editors at publishing houses unwilling to publish Jewish books, to literary media outlets refusing to cover Israeli or Jewish books and authors, major festivals no longer inviting Jews, and down to bookstores now boycotting Jews." The speaker is Adam Bellow, a legendary American editor and publisher. After an extensive career at prestigious houses like Doubleday, HarperCollins, and St. Martin's Press, and after discovering and nurturing some of America's most successful authors' careers, Bellow decided he could no longer tolerate the industry in its current form.

This was no easy decision, considering not only his own achievements but also that his father – Nobel Prize laureate Saul Bellow, one of the most important Jewish-American authors of all time – helped elevate the industry and remained among its most cherished figures for decades.

"In a sense," Bellow told Israel Hayom, "what's happening now to Jews in the publishing industry represents a tremendous injustice. This industry was institutional and dormant, the exclusive domain of WASP gentlemen. Jews arrived and transformed the industry into a global powerhouse, just as we did in Hollywood and other industries. And now, we face exactly the same discrimination we see in so many other industries we helped elevate, like universities."

Which leads us, Bellow continued, to an extremely difficult choice.

"Now we Jews in all these industries excluding us have exactly two options," he said. "Do we stay and fight to reclaim positions earned honestly through hard work, or do we leave and establish our own parallel institutions, as we did in the first decades of modern Jewish existence in America? I won't presume to judge either way, but I can tell you what I did – which was to leave quickly and establish my own publishing house, which is thriving. So now, as someone once said, it was the worst of times, it was the best of times."

The post Shelf censorship: How US publishing boycotts Israel and its supporters appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Any attempt to explain why to vote for one candidate or another is bound to fail from the start. The scope is too vast to capture in brief, and the discussion too important to be reduced to acronyms or slogans. But for those who believe, as I do, that Donald Trump is the preferred candidate for the US presidency, the task seems easier. After all, Trump was president for four years, which means that instead of prophesying about what might be, we can easily look at what was. So why vote for Trump today?

Because while every American president since 1995 refused to honor Congress's decision to move the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, citing fears of Palestinian violence, Trump inaugurated the new embassy, teaching everyone an important lesson about refusing to surrender to threats.

Because when all the learned experts explained that peace between Israel and Arab states was impossible without first solving the Palestinian issue, Trump delivered the Abraham Accords – the most significant step toward lasting peace in the Middle East in decades, and the only one not based on the failed and detestable equation of "land for peace."

Because when Obama, Biden, and their associates eagerly promoted a foreign policy centered on cooperation with Tehran's murderous regime, Trump reinstated sanctions, eliminated Qassem Soleimani, and made it clear to the ayatollahs that terrorism would have severe consequences – an understanding that led to quiet until the Democrats returned to the White House.

While President Joe Biden delivered eloquent speeches and transferred vast sums to Ukraine, he failed in the most crucial mission: arming Ukrainians with the military capabilities to defeat Putin. And Trump? The man whom the media and US intelligence agencies tried to frame as Moscow's agent ended the five-decade disarmament agreement with the Russians and signaled to Putin that any aggression would not be well-received. He also armed President Volodymyr Zelensky's military with Javelin anti-tank missiles, which perhaps explains why Putin, like Hamas and its Iranian supporters, waited until Biden was settled in the White House before invading and starting the war.

Because his economic policies reduced, for the first time in 60 years, the wage gap between America's bottom and top quartiles, explaining why the vast majority of working-class people, including most trade union members traditionally considered enthusiastic Democratic Party supporters, now vote for Trump, and why more than two-thirds of those earning $500,000 or more annually support Harris.

Because Trump is the first president who stood firm against Western appeasement of China, making it clear to Beijing that its flagrant theft of software, industrial secrets, and intellectual property – theft costing the American economy around $600 billion annually – must stop. Trump backed his tough talk with equally tough trade agreements, causing the Chinese to back down briefly, until Biden returned to Washington and nullified all his predecessor's achievements with a stroke of a pen.

Because Trump understands there's no more acute problem, or greater existential threat, than millions of illegal immigrants crossing the border unchecked. Just last week, for instance, one of them, benefiting from Biden and Harris's reckless and permissive immigration policy, randomly shot a Jew walking to synagogue on Saturday. The US must secure not only its security future, endangered when thousands of unscreened violent migrants roam its cities freely, but also its economic future, which is at risk if illegal immigrants continue to pose an enormous burden on taxpayers – in New York alone, they cost the city $5 billion, forcing the city to reduce welfare services for US-born poor – and continue taking jobs that traditionally supported minorities and lower classes.

Because Trump was the first to expand the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to define Jews as a protected minority, giving the federal government broader power to fight rising antisemitism, especially on campuses. Instead of applauding the president for this necessary step, US media portrayed the legislation as an attack on free speech and continued, without any factual basis, to accuse Trump of antisemitism.

The idea: Common sense and freedom of choice

One could go on and on, but the bottom line is clear: Donald Trump may be an unconventional and unusual candidate, and sometimes he makes statements that even his most ardent supporters would prefer to forget, but he was a measured, responsible, and excellent president. Instead of accepting as gospel the educated lies of the elites – for instance, that anyone who wants should be allowed to enter the US, or that wars can never be won and therefore aren't worth trying – he promoted different, necessary ideas that history has already proven absolutely correct.

After years of elite rule, during which giant corporations, media conglomerates, intelligence agencies, and politicians became one inseparable entity serving only its own interests and no one else's, while taking more and more basic liberties from other citizens, Trump came demanding change. The movement he leads is a return – irritating, disruptive, but absolutely necessary – to American founding principles, foremost among them the understanding that democracy's owners aren't just in Hollywood, Silicon Valley, or Wall Street, but all of us, the unglittering majority who, like any normal person, care first about their own interests. The deranged American press calls such an approach "racism" or "misogyny" or "transphobia" or "xenophobia." The more accurate definition is common sense and freedom of choice, a basic idea that Donald Trump apparently understands better than anyone else.

Liel Leibovitz is a senior editor at Tablet Magazine and a popular podcast host. The author of several books, he writes for Israel Hayom, The New York Post, The Wall Street Journal, and other publications.

The post Rejecting the elite's narrative: Trump is better for America and Israel appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In American politics today, even the most confident pundits are hesitant in making predictions. Reliable polls put Trump and Harris in an extremely close race, with just a few thousand voters in swing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, or Arizona likely to sway the election one way or the other. Who will win in November? Only time will tell.

Nonetheless, only a fool would deny that Kamala Harris is in trouble.

How much trouble?

The clearest answer comes from Polymarket, a digital prediction platform allowing bets on virtually anything, with over $2 billion in activity and notable supporters like Elon Musk and renowned advisors like statistician Nate Silver. Weeks before the Democratic Party officially replaced Biden with his vice president, Polymarket projected this outcome. And until October 4, it estimated Harris and Trump had nearly equal chances of victory.

But from that date onward, Harris began to nosedive while Trump soared. As of this writing, Trump leads with a 60 percent likelihood, with the gap only widening. What explains this extreme change? The answer is both clear and painfu to Harrisl: She started giving interviews..

Hollywood comfort zone

For those not following the details, here's a brief history of the candidate and her media appearances. Harris announced her candidacy on July 21, the day Biden, under pressure from his party, declared he would not run again. On August 5, she became the official Democratic nominee after a virtual vote, a process that covered up the fact that no real voters cast ballots for her.

Despite her position as vice president, Harris declared a media blackout. While Trump was giving interviews and holding press conferences nearly daily, Harris avoided any interviews or unscripted encounters with voters. Finally, on August 29, nearly a month into a three-month campaign, she agreed to an interview with CNN's Dana Bash, but only if her running mate, Tim Walz, was by her side and the interview wasn't live.

Initially, this silence strategy worked. New York Magazine, a favorite among affluent, liberal readers, ran a special cover celebrating "Kamelot"—a wordplay combining "Kamala" and the mythical "Camelot" of JFK's era. Other media outlets joined in, praising Harris as a courageous, brilliant, and accomplished woman.

Ironically, this only intensified the Republican message: if Harris was so capable and brilliant during her four years with Joe Biden, Republicans said, she shouldn't fear public interviews. Growing pressure from voters finally led Harris to agree to do so.

She started small, appearing on local shows like "Afternoon Vibes with Ms. Jessica," a Black radio host in North Carolina who usually covers topics like rapper Cardi B's avocado dip recipe. This choice of reaching only Black or Hispanic hosts in small media markets did little to appease voters, so Harris ramped up her efforts. In mid-September, she recruited celebrities like Oprah Winfrey, Meryl Streep, Julia Roberts, and Chris Rock for a "showcase" that felt more like a campaign commercial than actual journalism.

Harris's appearance with Winfrey highlighted one of her main weaknesses: despite decades in high-level positions, including vice president, she struggles to answer even simple questions. When asked about her flagship economic plan, Harris proposed giving $5,000 to anyone wanting to start a small business. Winfrey, a business mogul herself, replied that no one could start a business with such a tiny sum.

Oprah didn't press further, but the viewers at home saw something else—and they kept seeing it every time Harris spoke.

Blame Trump

Even Harris's strongest supporters couldn't ignore that she struggled to provide clear answers, even to friendly interviewers. Take immigration, a key issue this year: under Biden's administration, about 8 million undocumented immigrants have crossed the border, with 1.7 million untraceable. Of those under federal supervision, 662,566 have criminal records, including 435,719 convicted felons and 13,099 convicted murderers.

Even Democratic voters want to know why the Biden administration allowed such lapses in border control. What would Harris, the self-proclaimed "border czar," do differently? Her answer: blame Donald Trump.

This answer satisfied no one. Even former President Bill Clinton criticized Biden's immigration policies in a speech supporting Harris, referencing the murder of Laken Riley, a Georgia student, by an undocumented Venezuelan immigrant. Trump's campaign immediately released an ad featuring Clinton's words followed by the closing tagline: "I'm Donald Trump, and I approve this message."

Realizing she had to address questions candidly, Harris chose the respected 60 Minutes for an interview. Yet viewers quickly realized that Harris's responses had been heavily edited to make her sound coherent.

For instance, when asked about Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu pursuing policies contrary to Biden's administration, her answer was another word salad: "The work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region."

This response only aired after unedited footage leaked. In the broadcasted version, her answer was edited to, "We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end."

Copy-paste disaster

If Harris's campaign could salvage the situation, another issue arose immediately. Conservative journalist Chris Rufo published research finding substantial plagiarism in Harris's book, Tough on Crime, with entire passages copied from Wikipedia.

The New York Times downplayed this, calling it a "conservative attack on a few paragraphs," but plagiarism expert Jonathan Bailey later clarified that the Times had only provided him a fraction of Rufo's findings, and his deeper review suggested even more severe problems.

How will Harris's journey to the White House end?

It's difficult to say. Voters might still choose her, especially those whose dislike of Trump has been stoked for years by media portraying him as a dictator in the making. Only this week, The Atlantic published an article suggesting Trump takes inspiration from not just Mussolini but Hitler and Stalin as well.

Or, the substantial efforts Democrats are making to challenge US election norms may bear fruit. Last week, Biden's Attorney General Merrick Garland sued Virginia for removing ineligible non-citizens from its voter rolls. Virginia's Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin, asked the federal government to clarify how following election law warranted a lawsuit. The Wall Street Journal noted that Garland's move seemed to encourage illegal immigrants to vote for a candidate struggling to win legal voters' support.

Harris might also lose, and decisively so—not due to racism, sexism, or any other easy scapegoats, but simply because her party, without consulting voters, chose an unaccomplished candidate whose rise depended on political correctness. Time will tell—ten days, to be exact.

The post The mistake that could cost Harris the race appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Listen to a story, or more accurately, an American Jewish tale: Once upon a time, many years ago, a child was born to a warm Jewish family in Minnesota. Brilliant, ambitious, and clear-eyed, the boy looked around and immediately understood that two obstacles stood between him and glory: First, he lived in the Midwest, while the smart and beautiful people who defined America for themselves clustered in New York or Los Angeles or Boston. And second, he grew up Jewish in a country that still marched to the beat of centuries-old Protestant elites. To reinvent himself, the clever boy realized, he would first need to reinvent America, and, moreover, to create it in his own image.

Who are we talking about? Bob Dylan, born in Duluth, is not a bad guess. But while the iconic singer remained true to the truth even when it wasn't so popular, and was rewarded for his stubbornness and integrity with a Nobel Prize, the second-most important Jew to ever emerge from Minnesota took a different path, which has come to an end now. Thomas Friedman, a close personal friend of President Joe Biden who insisted for years that his friend was sharp as a tack, was forced, in light of the latter's shocking performance in the televised debate against Donald Trump, to admit that Biden is no longer fit to be president and should withdraw from the race.

This admission, which Friedman published in his New York Times column, revealed more about Friedman himself than about his friend in the Oval Office. It exposed, to anyone who still had doubts, that Friedman, one of America's most talented and influential writers of the last four decades, no longer bothers himself with facts or even original ideas, but prints whatever his friends in the political elite decide should be printed. Which says more about the elite than about Friedman: When the parroting reporter himself is called to do damage control, it's a sign that the group that still presumes to dictate the American agenda – and according to every possible poll, does so against the voters' opinion and will – is in deep trouble.

"Jewish power, Jewish generals, Jewish tanks, Jewish pride" – this is how Friedman describes in his book, with obvious mockery, what he defines as Menachem Begin's supposed pornographic worldview, a view according to which only strength will lead to Israeli survival in the region. For the Jew from Minnesota, the Israelis he fell in love with as a teenager were beautiful and righteous, the people of the Labour kibbutzim and moshavim – not the Likud thugs, not to mention the messianic kippa wearers or God forbid the ultra-Orthodox. One of the most quoted passages in his book likened Israelis and American Jews to a couple who met and fell in love at first sight, until the latter visited the former's home and realized that Israel also has other sides.

"While Bob Dylan created himself as an American outsider who spoke only in riddles, Thomas Friedman is a professional sycophant who speaks in clichés," David Samuels, a former senior writer at The New York Times Magazine, tells Israel Hayom. "Using his skills as a salesman, he  marketed misguided ideas about the Middle East, technology, and China to an audience of Americans uninterested in deep thinking. And like Dylan himself, Friedman can't stop performing. He is the house poet of mediocrity, arrogance, and foolish naivety."

It wasn't always like this. Once, a long time ago, Friedman was a serious, respected, even revered journalist. And to understand how sad his decline is, one needs, as in any tragedy, to understand how inspiring the rise that preceded it was.

Fell in love with the kibbutz

Like many other greats who pushed themselves to fame, Friedman, born in Minneapolis, was orphaned from his father at a young age. The void that undoubtedly remained in his life was filled by two central passions: sports and Israel. As a gifted golfer and a not-so-bad tennis player, young Friedman hoped to be a full-time athlete. But his second love took up more and more space in his heart: Friedman spent long periods in his youth at Kibbutz HaHotrim, which he later defined in one of his books as "one big celebration of Israel's victory in the Six-Day War." And since Friedman didn't want the celebration to ever end, he decided to dedicate his entire career to the Middle East. He completed a bachelor's degree in Mediterranean studies at Brandeis University, a master's degree at Oxford, and after not many years was hired as a foreign correspondent by The New York Times and began covering Operation Peace for the Galile (First Lebanon War).

It did not take long for his editors and readers alike to realize that Tom Friedman was a rare journalistic talent.

"When I taught at Princeton University," Michael Doran, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and former US deputy secretary of defense under President George W. Bush, tells Israel Hayom, "I made sure to include chapters from his book 'From Beirut to Jerusalem,' as they vividly described the 'zero-sum' logic of Syrian politics under the dictator Hafez al-Assad, logic that led him to raze significant parts of the city of Hama when the 'Muslim Brotherhood' there rebelled against the regime. Friedman reached remote places to which we, his readers, had no access at all, and spoke with interesting people who always had something surprising to tell us about the world."

Even readers who weren't exactly interested in Middle Eastern affairs couldn't ignore Friedman's ability to provide captivating human anecdotes, like the one about the hostess in Beirut whose dinner party was interrupted by repeated bombings, and who finally had to ask her guests if they wanted to eat now or if they preferred to wait for the ceasefire. There was a lot of charm and human warmth in these anecdotes. But there was also something else, something that seeped beneath the surface – a certain rigid worldview that Friedman promoted in every column. Deep down, Friedman repeatedly emphasized in every report, people everywhere in the world want exactly the same thing: to lead a life of peace, tranquility, and economic prosperity, a universal aspiration that everywhere and at all times was disrupted only by a small handful of cynics, who hid their personal interests under the guise of one ideology or another.

The other Israel

This very American approach appealed to Friedman's very American readers. What, then, did those who read Tom Friedman from Beirut and later from Jerusalem learn? Simple: that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict began with Yasser Arafat (Hajj Amin al-Husseini? Don't confuse Friedman with ancient history); that the same conflict is a separate entity that doesn't depend on any external factor (well, so what if there was once such a thing as pan-Arabism that played a crucial role in the region. No need to complicate things too much); that Iran is just a footnote, a regime that exploits geopolitical opportunities, but doesn't really aspire to dominate the region (ignore for a moment Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and other organizations that Tehran endlessly encourages and finances); that the conflict in the Middle East is mainly about issues of honor and self-definition (religion? What religion exactly are you talking about?); and that while the Palestinians need to stand up and assure Israel that they are for peace, Israel itself has a much bigger challenge: the challenge of giving up any sign of strength.

"Jewish power, Jewish generals, Jewish tanks, Jewish pride" – this is how Friedman describes in his book, with obvious mockery, what he defines as Menachem Begin's supposed pornographic worldview, a view according to which only strength will lead to Israeli survival in the region. For the Jew from Minnesota, the Israelis he fell in love with as a teenager were beautiful and righteous, the people of the Labour kibbutzim and moshavim – not the Likud thugs, not to mention the messianic kippa wearers or God forbid the ultra-Orthodox. One of the most quoted passages in his book likened Israelis and American Jews to a couple who met and fell in love at first sight, until the latter visited the former's home and realized that Israel also has other sides.

"American Jews suddenly found themselves exclaiming to Israelis, 'Hey, I fell in love with Golda Meir. You mean to tell me that Rabbi Meir Kahane is in your family!', Friedman wrote in his first book. "'I went out with Moshe Dayan—you mean to tell me that ultra-Orthodox are in your family! I loved someone who makes deserts green, not someone who breaks Palestinians' bones," he continued.

These insights and others like them earned Tom Friedman the Pulitzer Prize in 1983 – the first of three so far – and a regular column in the most influential newspaper in the world. They also secured him the ear of government leaders around the world, who took his words very seriously and conducted foreign policy according to them.

Friedman, says Asaf Romirowsky, a historian and executive director of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, rose to prominence among decision-makers thanks to "sensational stories at the heart of which is the belief that there is a moral balance between Israel and Fatah."

According to this view, continues Romirowsky, there is no point in talking about "Israeli interests," because Israel and the Palestinians have no independent interests that differ significantly from each other: If all sides are equally guilty in the conflict, then no one is really guilty, and the solution depends only on finding a viable security and economic compromise, which will lead both sides to see how similar they are and how much they can gain, if only they restrain the extremists on both sides.

This logic, the internal logic of the Oslo Accords, became, as Romirowsky notes, the guiding light of those responsible for diplomacy in Washington and European capitals. But the Middle East looked small and dusty to someone with ambitions and talent like Tom Friedman, and in 1995 he was promoted from a journalist reporting from the field to a columnist on global foreign relations.

As always, his timing was perfect: The years were those of the collapse of the Soviet Union, and Friedman the columnist told a story bigger than any he had told before, a global tale with a happy ending, according to which all the dusty obstacles of the old world – wars, beliefs, tribalism, and the likes – were removed, and all that remained was a flat, fast world full of opportunities to get rich. Instead of reports from the field, Friedman, in his columns and books, offered big ideas in service of the globalization celebration. One of the most famous of these is the Golden Arches Theory: "No two countries that both have a McDonald's have ever fought a war against each other," Friedman claimed in a famous column from 1996.

Who is Angelina Jolie?

The theory had its own logic: As globalization creates more and more economic opportunities, it becomes less and less worthwhile for countries to fight each other. Capitalism will bring world peace, Friedman promised, echoing greater thinkers before him, like Adam Smith.

It's not hard to understand why everyone fell in love with the theory, and quickly. For the captains of the global economy, the idea was a promise, not only of enormous enrichment but also of a cloak of moral superiority. For politicians, the idea served as an engine for attractive slogans about a better tomorrow, the kind that pushed young people like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair to the top. And for simple readers, the idea was, how shall we call it, simple – an easy, shiny, and not worrying version of reality after decades of cold and complicated war.

There was just one problem with Friedman's theory: Reality.

NATO's bombing of Belgrade. The American invasion of Panama. The battles in Kashmir between India and Pakistan. Israel and Lebanon. Russia and Georgia. Russia and Ukraine: There's no shortage of examples that disprove not only the bottom line of Friedman's ideas – there are plenty of countries abundant with McDonald's that have fought each other – but also the basic logic underlying them. International companies did not replace nation-states. Economic security did not dim tribal identity. Grudges hundreds or thousands of years old did not dissolve with a single Big Mac order.

But the Friedman train could not be stopped. A profile in The New Yorker magazine from 2008 described to the world Friedman's rise from just another influential journalist to something much bigger: intimate meetings with Bill Gates, frequent briefings with government officials in Washington, dinner parties with movie stars.

But it was important for the boy from Minnesota not to be seen by the world as one who abandoned his Midwestern, all-American roots for power and authority. "I've talked with [Barack] Obama once in my life.," Friedman told The New Yorker writer, forgetting to mention that the president quoted his ideas publicly from time to time, including in a speech at the Gridiron Club in Washington in 2006. In the same article, one of Friedman's friends is interviewed, who told how her friend Tom returned from Davos and told her that he had spoken there with a very beautiful girl. "And what was her name?" the friend asked. "Angelina," Friedman answered innocently, with no idea who Ms. Jolie was.

This naivety was very important to Friedman, as his branding – the source of his power and wealth – was of one who speaks simply and honestly, one who takes supposedly complex matters and explains them in terms anyone can understand. But a brand, as any novice advertiser knows, is only worth something if it manages to attract buyers, and for someone who writes about foreign relations, the buyers are those who run large companies and countries. And it didn't take too long for his ideas to begin to bubble towards open admiration for anyone in power, without any concern for archaic things like conscience or morality or truth.

Here he is, for example, on modern China, in a column from 2009."But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power."

NATO's bombing of Belgrade. The American invasion of Panama. The battles in Kashmir between India and Pakistan. Israel and Lebanon. Russia and Georgia. Russia and Ukraine: There's no shortage of examples that disprove not only the bottom line of Friedman's ideas – there are plenty of countries abundant with McDonald's that have fought each other – but also the basic logic underlying them. International companies did not replace nation-states. Economic security did not dim tribal identity. Grudges hundreds or thousands of years old did not dissolve with a single Big Mac order.

So what if China's carbon dioxide emissions jumped by 80% between 2005 and 2019, according to the U.S. State Department, and so what if Beijing are accused of blatant human rights violations? To Friedman, all this didn't change anything at all. The same goes for Russia: Vladimir Putin – Tom Friedman reassured his readers in a column from December 2001 – is the pragmatic, level-headed, and serious leader the Russian nation has yearned for for ages. The responsible adult who knows that the most important thing in the world is the bottom line of balance sheets, and the man who will be happy with any compromise, as long as it ends with a few more rubles in the average Russian's pocket.

"So keep rootin' for Putin– and hope that he makes it to the front of Russia's last line," he wrote.

Only Biden can. Or not

With this Friedman, who provides ridiculous quotes that innocently celebrate the problem-free victory of the world of startups and technology and gives a pass to any leader who sends the right catchphrases, one could still live. One could even still bear the endless columns against the judicial reform in Israel, which included, outrageously, a call for Joe Biden to intervene in Israel's internal affairs, and to save the only democracy in the Middle East from the ignorant voting public in Israel and its utterly incorrect opinions. Last July, for example, Friedman published a column titled "Only Biden Can Save Israel," in which he argued that Israel of 2023, like Israel of 1973, needs an American airlift of aid, but not of weapons and ammunition but of truth. Israel, Friedman wrote, "needs an urgent resupply of hard truths, something only you [President Biden] can provide."

But even those who could still tolerate the columnist who believes that only Biden can make it clear to Israelis what they really want and need, had to come to terms in recent months with the irrefutable fact: America's most famous writer has entered the third and saddest period of his professional life. In recent years, says Tevi Troy, a presidential historian and the former deputy secretary of health and human services, Friedman has gained so much influence in the Biden administration that he has essentially become a "mouthpiece of the government." Friedman, Troy testified, "gets unlimited access to the White House, and in return shares the administration's perspective." Other sources in Washington reinforced Troy's words, testifying that the relationship between Democratic Party leaders and Friedman has become so symbiotic that it's no longer possible to separate one from the other. And a profile of President Biden in The New Yorker earlier this year mentioned casually that Friedman is one of the few people the president calls frequently.

The man who started his career as a brilliant journalist and continued it as an influential columnist with big and ambitious ideas, is now ending it as a hollow mouthpiece of the elites he dreamed all his life of belonging to, elites whose flaws are increasingly laid bare for all to see.

Want proof? There's none better than the column Friedman was forced to write at the end of June, a column that made waves in American and international media. A bit of background: In recent years, Friedman has often prided himself on his friendship with President Biden and his closeness to the administration. When world leaders crowded into Davos, Switzerland in January, for example, Friedman and his friend Antony Blinken sat down for a public conversation on stage and sounded more like two friends late at night at a bar than the secretary of state and the most respected journalist of his generation. And yet, Friedman, the man who once prided himself on straight and reliable reporting from the field, never questioned Biden's competence. He continued to encourage the president even as the latter's mental state appeared increasingly fragile. He continued to write columns claiming that the 81-year-old man in the Oval Office is a brilliant statesman working tirelessly on the "Biden Doctrine," one that will bring peace to the Middle East – Friedman argued in a column earlier this year – through American insistence on the immediate establishment of a Palestinian state. And if Biden is not re-elected, Friedman cried in another column, we can expect an immediate global catastrophe.

And then Joe made his way to the television studio, took his place on the debate stage with Trump, and proved what was already clear as day to anyone who had looked at the president without bias in recent months – or in recent years: Biden does not have the cognitive skills required for the office he aspires to be re-elected to.

The debate put Friedman in a difficult position. Column after column head  painted the president as a once-in-a-generation leader, a brilliant statesman without whom the world is a step away from disaster. Column after column after column he poured contempt, mainly on Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and promised his readers that only Biden can curb the destructive appetite of such dangerous leaders.

Just this past February, he wrote that Biden is "a president who grew up in the Cold War and built on a bedrock of American values and interests that have served us well since we entered World War II." In contrast, Trump "behaves as if he learned his world affairs not at Wharton but by watching World Wrestling Entertainment." And in another column that same month, Friedman warned Netanyahu that since his post war plan is "essentially says to the world that Israel now intends to occupy both the West Bank and Gaza indefinitely," he shouldn't be surprised if the whole world "will edge away and the Biden team will start to look hapless."

Thomas Friedman said all this. And in almost every column, he repeated and emphasized that only President Biden can solve the conflict. At no point did Friedman admit, even in a word, that the man to whom he is so close is deteriorating.

Until the debate came, and Friedman was forced to write a column in which he calls on his friend the president to step down. Which proved what many have long thought: that the esteemed columnist now spends his days parroting the messages that come to him from the White House.

Took the bait

This realization is now seeping in even among those who were previously Friedman's admirers. "He has abandoned the central roles of any journalist – to tell the truth, to ask hard questions that our political orthodoxies forbid us to ask, and to stand his ground regardless of the cost," says Doran. "I won't speculate about who and how Tom Friedman was tempted to abandon these qualities, which he once had, but I have no doubt that he was tempted indeed. Friedman is probably unaware that he has become a mouthpiece for the administration. He probably believes he is still thinking independently and drawing his own conclusions. It's just a pure coincidence that 100% of his conclusions support the dogmas of the Democratic Party."

This partisan worldview, Doran concludes, points to much more than the lack of professional integrity of one journalist, but to a much bigger problem with the worldview that Friedman is asked to promote – a worldview of a liberal elite that has lost all grip on reality. Friedman, Doran explains, promotes a theory according to which Biden is trying to establish a regional coalition against Iran, a coalition whose entire existence is in doubt only because of Netanyahu's insistence on not agreeing to the establishment of a Palestinian state that would give the Palestinian Authority control over Gaza. And this theory, Doran continues, suffers from clear illogic.

"First, the Palestinian Authority has failed to take control of the West Bank, so how exactly are they supposed to control Gaza, from which Hamas expelled them in 2007? Second, doesn't Biden's policy, which insists on ending the war immediately and in a way that will leave Hamas with some control over the territory, make the idea of a new order in Gaza even more absurd? And finally, doesn't the fact that Biden is working to find diplomatic solutions with the Iranians in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen refute the idea that the administration is somehow trying to build a coalition to fight Iran? These questions have never bothered Thomas Friedman. And for this reason, I now read him as one reads columnists in the Russian, Chinese, and Arab press: no longer to learn new and surprising things about the world, but to see what the regime wants me to believe."

The post What happened to Thomas Friedman? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.