I met Kirk at the start of his public career seven years ago. Even then, those who knew him regarded him as a future president. He had it all – maturity, charisma, openness, values, extraordinary organizational skills, a gift for fundraising, and striking looks. Most of all, he had the ability to speak with people who thought the opposite of him. He didn't always persuade his opponents, but I never met anyone who managed to change so many minds.

More than anyone else, Kirk was responsible for the political transformation of America's youth. Donald Trump won more young voters than any Republican president in modern history. Polls show today's young generation is far more conservative than their parents, with a renewed embrace of family, faith, nationalism, capitalism, initiative, and personal responsibility.

These were precisely the themes Kirk spoke about, influencing tens of millions. For young conservatives, his assassination feels like the killings of Robert F. Kennedy or Martin Luther King Jr. Israelis unfamiliar with Kirk may find it hard to grasp the magnitude of this loss, or how deeply it unsettles this generation's sense of security.

Kirk was also a staunch friend of Israel and a fierce critic of antisemitism. His love for Israel and the Jewish people stemmed from his deep religious faith, but also from his profound belief in truth and justice. He never hesitated to confront Israel's detractors, always with wisdom and dignity. He condemned antisemitism at every opportunity. Israel's government would be wise to collect and amplify his many remarks about Israel and the Jewish people.

A target for elimination

At the time of writing, we still do not know the motives behind the assassination. But anyone following the online discourse in recent weeks could see that Kirk had been marked as a prime target. Contrary to the slanted coverage in Israeli media, violence – even murder – has in recent years become a legitimate tool for the alliance between the radical Left and radical Islam.

A survey conducted a few months ago found that 48% of Democrats consider it legitimate to kill Elon Musk. The demonization of the right by much of the media and by the Democratic Party and its affiliates is the root of this violence. Democrats have openly declared that any means are acceptable to topple or neutralize a right-wing government.

Trump and his supporters were persecuted by then-president Joe Biden's administration and remain targets of corrupt prosecutors, radical judges, and hostile media. When those efforts failed to convince the American people of their falsehoods, Democrats turned to violence – from the George Floyd riots to rising antisemitism, from assassination attempts on Rep. Steve Scalise and Trump himself, culminating in the murder of Charlie Kirk. Students are celebrating his death.

Politicians such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are justifying it. Left-wing media are distorting the coverage, portraying Kirk as an extremist. This represents a complete moral collapse. Delegitimization and political violence do exist on the right, but only on the margins and to a far lesser extent than on the Left.

The use of violence, of the media, and of the judicial system to achieve political goals will only lead to more violence and the erosion of public trust in democracy and the rule of law. Kirk's message was the opposite: dialogue, openness, and love of humanity.

America has lost a leader, and perhaps a future president. Israel has lost a dear friend. May his memory be a blessing.

The post The murder of Charlie Kirk proves the radical left's moral collapse appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The law allows the federal government to reduce funding to universities, but this marks the first time an administration has exercised this provision.

Columbia University exemplifies the decay spreading through American academia. Since October 7, the university has been a hotbed of antisemitic and anti-Israel activity, posing a continuous and real threat to Jewish and Israeli students and faculty.

The deterioration of institutions like Columbia began decades ago. For years, we have seen terrorist sympathizers invited to lecture and teach. Columbia even hosted Iran's president. University administrations are weak, dominated by radical faculty members who recruit more like-minded radicals and indoctrinate students with a modern form of communism, one that fosters hatred toward the US, Israel, and Jews.

Today's universities operate as financial entities, prioritizing revenue above all else. Columbia University alone enrolls more than 20,000 international students, generating over $1.5 billion in annual revenue. It is easy to see why the University avoids addressing the behavior of these students.

Hundreds of millions from Qatar

Between 2014 and 2019, Columbia University received $295 million in donations from Qatar, along with additional funds from other non-democratic nations. Meanwhile, the university receives $5 billion in grants from the US government. The administration also has other tools at its disposal, such as imposing fines or revoking the university's tax-exempt status. However, the numbers do not tell the full story, any university that loses government support will quickly lose its status, its top researchers, and its students.

This "small" cut is merely a warning shot, signaling to all universities. The task force has already launched investigations into other leading institutions, and further economic measures - even criminal indictments - are expected. On Sunday, a deportation order was issued against the leader of the Columbia riots, the first of many to be expelled.

University leaders and their boards of trustees have no choice but to address the institutionalized antisemitism that has permeated every corner of their campuses.

At first, they will likely attempt to create the illusion of taking action with superficial measures. I am not sure this approach will work this time. Without a painful intervention, including the closure of departments and the dismissal of radical faculty members, nothing will change.

Israeli universities could also be affected by cuts to joint projects with American researchers. Although most external research funding in Israel comes from Europe rather than the US, university presidents should be prepared to respond.

For decades, Israelis and Jews have been facing a silent war led by Qatar, Iran, Russia, China, and progressive donors in the US (such as George Soros). Israel has yet to devote the necessary attention and resources to this battle. The time has come to establish a dedicated body to fight it, with authority, funding, and a clear mission. This is a matter of survival.

Yossie Hollander is an entrepreneur and philanthropist who has been fighting antisemitism for many years.

The post Columbia cuts - A response to decay spreading on campuses appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The first question is, of course, who is a Jew. In the United States, voter registration does not indicate voter religion. Polls are conducted by companies that specialize in the Jewish population. The problem is that these companies are actually surveying a partial and unrepresentative group of the Jewish population and therefore the results are distorted.

 Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The largest group not represented at all in the polls are Israeli Americans. These are Israelis who emigrated to the United States and are citizens with voting rights. Their numbers are not accurately known and there are several estimates ranging from 600,000 to one million. Trump support in this group is very high. There are no official polls on the percentage of support, but I believe that 80% is a conservative estimate.   Pollsters do not know how to reach these voters and they only manage to measure a very small percentage of them.

The next group is the ultra-Orthodox.  They number about 500,000. Most of them are Trump voters and are voting in high percentages.  On the other hand, it is important to remember that the percentage of children in the ultra-Orthodox population is relatively higher than the average population, so the number of voters is not the same ratio as in other populations.  They are not at all surveyed since the cost of conducting the survey in this population is very expensive.

The third group is immigrants from the former Soviet Union and their children. These are 350,000, most of whom are Trump voters.  For a variety of reasons, too, they are rarely surveyed.  Of course, the groups are not homogeneous - for example, a child of an Israeli who marries a third-generation Jew in America - making the measurement even more difficult.

Over the past 30 years, there has been massive internal immigration from the population centers in the north to the "Southwest Belt." This includes Orange County California, San Diego County, Nevada, Arizona, Texas, Atlanta, and Florida. This migration also includes Jews, and these Jewish communities are growing at a rapid rate.  Most polling models still use the old population distribution.  We do not know who the "migrant" voters are, but most of them live in conservative areas.

As we can see, most of the polls actually survey less than 50% of the Jewish population that is located in the old Jewish centers and who are largely democratic voters. If we consider all four populations described above where the percentage of support for Trump is high, it is likely that most Jews actually voted for Trump.

Adding that to the fact that many voters are afraid to admit that they voted for Trump (especially to their Democrat friends), the obvious conclusion is that the real situation on the ground is the opposite of the common media theme about Hilary.  Actually – most Jews voted for Trump.   I cannot predict what will happen in 2020, but this trend is likely to continue and may even be strengthened, especially if the Democratic Party chooses an anti-Israeli candidate.

The post Contrary to popular belief, most US Jews support Trump appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.