Blundering and Election Fever in Israel Today

This past week has been characterised by a widespread outbreak of blundering among politicians and officials.

In Israel, election fever is growing, and with it, a guarantee that bluster and blunder will increase the closer we get to polling day. Legally, elections must be held no later than October. As part of pre-election chaos, no actual date has yet been determined, which gives all concerned a perfect opportunity to indulge in early inept attempts at subterfuge and hyper-inflated rhetoric.

Elsewhere in the world, Israel remains the perfect target for political and media mendacity. Needless to say, each and every utterance as well as decision by Israeli officials is dissected and analysed, following which the collective wrath of the international community descends.

Accompanying any blunders are “own goals” which present critics and haters with a perfect opportunity to censure and condemn.

There are many examples of how to turn pre-planned and orchestrated campaigns of incitement into a public relations disaster.

This, in turn, presents all those who believe Israel is living in perpetual sin with a perfect opportunity to demonise and denounce.

The latest crop of inept incidents demonstrates the unreal realities we currently confront.

The recent fake flotilla saga is a perfect example of blundering on a grand scale and scoring own goals.

It was always from its very inception going to be an exercise in smearing Israel and grabbing media headlines. The only thing actually missing on this particular farcical act of deception was Greta Thunberg, who, for some reason, decided to give these ships of fools a miss.

As per the ordained script, these mariners sailing to Gaza with very little in the way of any useful aid were intercepted by the Israeli Navy and taken to Israel for interrogation and deportation. In the absence of photos and videos of violent confrontations at sea, it was always a given that, following deportation, they would accuse Israel of various heinous crimes.

True to form, the anticipated accusations followed, swallowed as usual by a gullible media and blundering politicians. Not unrepentantly, the Australian women asserted that they had been sexually abused, raped and otherwise tortured. This unsubstantiated smear was eagerly lapped up by the usual quarters, including the Australian Foreign Minister, Penny Wong.

Not so many years ago, Jews were believed to have tortured and killed Christian babies. These days, all it takes for an updated version of this libel to go viral is a press conference and political ineptitude.

Talking of ineptitude, one must also marvel at the ability of Israel’s Security Minister to score an own goal by videoing himself taunting the arrested flotilla crews and bragging about their stupidity. That act destroyed any chance of positive publicity and confirmed Israel as a villainous perpetrator of illegal crimes.

It might have been wonderful election fodder for devoted followers, but it was a gross blundering on a grand scale.

Trump is a masterful blunderer, whether intentional or otherwise.

It has been reported that in a recent telephone conversation, he told Netanyahu, “Everyone hates you.”

There is no record of what the Israeli PM replied, or whether he indeed ignored this claim. He should have taken a leaf out of Golda Meir’s response to a former American President.

She famously responded: “We have no intention of going down in order that some should speak well of us. No people in the world know collective eulogies as well as we Jews do. If we have a choice between being dead and pitied and being alive with a bad image we would rather be alive and have a bad image. The world hates a Jew who hits back. The world loves us when we are to be pitied.”

As Trump’s original statement received major headlines, so would Netanyahu’s response. Remaining silent in the face of ignorant bluster is the negative reaction to blundering blathering.

As I write this op-ed, Iranian missiles are once again being directed at Israeli civilian targets after Israel responded to continual drone and missile fire from Iran’s proxy partner, Hezbollah. Any self-respecting democracy would normally not expect to be warned against retaliating against terror attacks, especially from those dedicated to one’s demise.

Obviously, this sort of logic does not apply to the world’s sole Jewish sovereign nation.

European countries, which know a thing or two about surrendering and compromising with international bullies, lost no time in admonishing Israel for having the temerity to fight back.

The UK Foreign Secretary chimed in, urging Iran and Israel to “show restraint for the sake of peace and stability and global trade recovery.” This gratuitous piece of chutzpah assumes that peace will break out if the missiles stop and Iran will do a 180-degree flip and miraculously embrace the existence of Israel.

The Turkish Interior Minister uttered the following prayer: “Oh Lord, grant me the governorship of Jerusalem. Just as Damascus was liberated let Jerusalem be liberated and one day may those lands be ours again.” This desire to “make the Ottoman empire great again” seems incompatible with Turkish NATO membership, yet not one condemnation has been heard.

To cap off another vintage week, Trump, the chief blunderer himself, contributed some more pearls of wisdom.

In an interview with NBC News, he claimed, apparently with a straight face, that the Iranian Supreme Leader is more “rational” than his deceased father. This must come as a surprise to most experts because nobody has seen or heard from the current leader.

Blundering on, Trump went on to say that “unless Americans were killed” he would not restart military counter measures. In other words, no matter how many Israelis are murdered by Iran and its proxies, the USA would only act if its own citizens or military were killed. What a great way to make the world a safer place and support an ally.

What followed was even more bizarre.

Trump maintained that “we are having very good negotiations with the people that are leading the country now. It’s the third group we’ve been dealing with and they are different. You could say it is regime change actually because these are very different people. I find them to be more rational, very smart.”

Either the White House is engaged in some brilliant strategic master plan or whatever is being smoked has a very strong hallucinatory effect. If it’s all a figment of an overactive imagination and overinflated ego, we are headed for disaster.

Meanwhile, a huge blunder down under has erupted.

The Maccabiah (Jewish Olympics) held in Israel every four years is scheduled to commence at the end of June, having been postponed last year because of the Israel/Iran war. Assuming that the fake ceasefire manages to hold, this year’s event promises to be a wonderful gathering of Jewish competitors from all over the world.

Missing in action, however, will be Australian sportsmen and women because the Australian Maccabiah sports body has decided to cancel and bail out. Apparently, according to them, the security situation is such that safety cannot be guaranteed.

Israel, as usual, will be providing world-class security, which then begs the question as to what really lies behind Australia’s withdrawal.

Could the decision by any chance have anything to do with the Australian Government issuing a warning forbidding travel to Israel?

To make matters worse, Australian competitors were told that they could go as individuals but could not represent Australia.

Australian expats I have spoken to are aghast and embarrassed at this move, especially as Australia has always been held in such high esteem and its competitors are strong supporters of Israel.

If ever there was an “own goal” this surely qualifies,

Australian Maccabiah officials need to take note of the comments made by the Chairman of Israel’s National Basketball League and the Wingate Sports Institute. He declared at the recent Jerusalem Post conference in New York: “The enemies of the Jewish People will not break us. Israeli and Jewish athletes will continue to compete, to stand tall in the face of these attacks and to bring pride, medals and international achievements.”

While he was referring to international sports boycotts, his remarks apply equally to the current situation.

Standing tall in the face of intimidation is surely one of the primary attributes of the Maccabiah Games.

The ancient Maccabees knew a thing or two about standing up to bigots.

Their modern-day compatriots must do no less.

Michael Kuttner is a Jewish New Zealander who for many years was actively involved with various communal organisations connected to Judaism and Israel. He now lives in Israel and is J-Wire’s correspondent in the region.

Israel has no choice but to risk open conflict with Trump

In my media interviews, I am often asked: “Has Israel become the 51st state of the US?” With half a smile, I answer: “If only. American states have far more freedom and room to maneuver than Israel does.”

This situation is hardly new. Ever since U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower demanded that Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion halt the Israel Defense Forces’ campaign against Egypt in Sinai in 1956, and later withdraw from Gaza, the United States has consistently forced Israel to stop fighting and agree to a ceasefire.

That was true in the 1967 Six-Day War, which Israel wanted to continue for an eighth day; in the 1973 Yom Kippur War; in both Lebanon wars; and in all our operations in Gaza. Even pro-Israel presidents such as Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon and George W. Bush threatened severe consequences if Israel ignored their demands to cease fire.

In May 2021, on the eighth day of “Operation Guardian of the Walls” against Hamas, I received a phone call from a senior adviser to U.S. President Joe Biden, who asked me to convey an urgent message to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: “Israel must end the operation tonight, or risk losing American support.” Netanyahu was furious. He wanted to keep fighting for at least three more days. But he immediately complied. The operation ended that evening.

The only difference between U.S. President Donald Trump and previous presidents is his tendency to treat us publicly as vassals who must obey his every order. This is humiliating and demoralizing for Israel and, unfortunately, it strengthens our enemies. But that raises the question: Must Israel obey the White House’s demands under all circumstances and at any price?

Historically, the answer has been “no.” U.S. presidents not only ordered Israel to stop fighting; they also opposed its decision to go to war in the first place. That was the case in every war from the establishment of the state until “Operation Rising Lion” last year. Yet Israel’s leaders, despite the risk of a rift with Washington, determined that our basic security was at stake and decided to act.

Ironically, every time Israel defied the White House and went to war—in 1948, for example, in 1967 and in the 1981 strike on Iraq’s nuclear reactor—we earned America’s respect. Every time we surrendered to pressure and showed restraint—in 1973 and in the 1991 Gulf War—we earned America’s contempt.

This record is especially relevant today, when Hezbollah will undoubtedly violate any ceasefire and continue attacking us. Israel needs to defend and save the north, but in doing so, it risks not only war with Iran but also an open confrontation with President Trump. As in the past, Israel will have no choice but to act.

With its eyes wide open to the potential cost, Israel must show that it is neither a U.S. vassal nor its 51st state, but a sovereign country with an unshakable duty to defend its territory and its citizens. In the end, if history is our guide, Trump will respect us for it.

Originally published in “Israel Hayom.”

Sponsors Sought to Conduct Investigations of Current Horrific Persecution of Christians In Bethlehem

These news items from the Philadelphia Bulletin from December 2007 were written by David Bedein, then the correspondent for the Philadelphia Bulletin, a newspaper which folded in 2010. Bedein’s coverage; https://israelbehindthenews.com/category/the-philadelphia-bulletin/ 

Walking With Fear In The Holiest Of Lands

BETHLEHEM – On a crisp sunny day, Jerusalem’s Latin Patriarch Michel Sabah was preparing for the Christmas Eve midnight mass that has been held every year for centuries in the holiest Christian site on earth – the Church of Nativity in Bethlehem, identified by Christians around the world as the site of the birthplace of Jesus.

At midday, surrounded by 10,000 onlookers in Nativity Square, he walked solemnly in a red robe behind a group of Catholic priests and a marching band.

Just steps from the church, a loudspeaker from a nearby mosque brought the procession to a halt. The broadcast of the Muslim call to prayer from the mosque’s speakers silenced the ‘cheering crowd, and marching band. “Allah Hu Akbar,” or “Allah is the mighty God,” the speakers crackled throughout the hilled valley. Even in this land where spirituality seems to emanate from every corner of the earth, the moment seemed awkward. For many, it brought back a painful reminder of Pope John Paul II’s pilgrimage to Bethlehem in March of 2000, when a similar Muslim call to prayer interrupted a Papal mass for seven minutes.

“They don’t respect us,” explained Peter, a Greek Orthodox Christian whose family’s Bethlehem roots trace back about 2,000 years. “They put on the loudspeakers at that moment to remind people that Islam is the religion of Bethlehem. And it is sad, because now the city of Jesus is the city of Mohammed.”

For centuries, Christians were the majority in Bethlehem, but in recent decades the Palestinian Authority – the autonomous political organization run by the PLO – has taken steps to make Muslims the majority. In the early ’90s, then-Palestinian President Yasser Arafat expanded the district’s boundaries, and included nearby Palestinian refugee camps with large Islamic populations. Arafat also built new Muslim neighborhoods opposite the birthplace of Jesus, and instilled a Muslim governor to oversee the area. He also encouraged the building of new mosques – in 1970, just five existed in Bethlehem; in 1993, 67 existed; by 2005, the number of mosques in Bethlehem had grown to 87.

As the Islamic population has grown in the city, Christians have seen their numbers drop precipitously. According to census reports, the city was half-Christian in 1973; in 1990, just 37 percent of Bethlehem was Christian. Today, just 16 percent of the city is Christian, with different families leaving each week, mostly for the US, Canada and Central America. As the Christian population decreased, Palestinian Muslims have flocked to the city, forming a solid majority. The turning point of Muslim control of the city came in 2006, when seven Islamic fundamentalists – representing Hamas and Islamic Jihad – were elected to the 15 member board. That board – which controls the city – consists of just three Christians.

Christians say a growing Islamic fundamentalism that sees Christianity as a second-rate religion is one of the major reasons for their flight. Long time Christian residents also complain about having to pay blackmail to government-affiliated gangs to keep their land, homes and businesses. Sometimes, even when they pay, land has been taken and people have been violently beaten.

The Palestinian Authority declined to comment on Christian allegations of mistreatment.

Christians say they can only walk safely in certain sections of the town, and they also avoid the main market which is now Muslim-only. Women are particularly careful to plan their shopping, and complain of daily sexual harassment by Muslim men. Christians also fear for their gold and silver crosses and crucifixes, and say they are frequently ripped from their necks in public.

“We don’t have any hope left in this city, our dream is to emigrate,” explained George, a Bethlehem Christian attorney. “The choice is to have a gang, and to keep a weapon in every house or to bend our heads, give up our dignity and become sheep.”

The threats and intimidation have not been limited to just Bethlehem’s Christians and have spread throughout the West Bank and Gaza. In Gaza, the tiny Christian community of 2,000 was rocked by the murder of Rami Ayyad, a Palestinian Bible Society teacher who was stabbed and shot by Islamic extremists in October. Ayyad, who left behind a pregnant wife and two children, was found near a Christian book shop.

Also, in October, an American-born Palestinian-Christian was forced to leave Ramallah and to return to his native Alabama after being repeatedly threatened by Fatah military officials. Isa Bajalia, a Christian cleric who heads Middle East Missions in Ramallah, was approached over the summer by militants who demanded a $30,000 cash payment along with the deed to his family’s property.

“They told me that if I didn’t do what they wanted they could get me no matter – whether if I was in the [United] States or here. They said to me we will break your arms and legs,” said Bajalia.

After months of daily threats, Bajalia fled to the US, fearing for his life.

Christian suffering
Although world television reports focused on the masses gathering in Nativity Square on Christmas Eve and Christmas day, Bethlehem’s Christians say the reports were superficial and shade the real truth of their day to day lives.

Just seven years ago, tens of thousands of tourists and Christians from all over the world poured into Bethlehem to celebrate Christmas and to attend open-air masses. On Christmas Eve, just 6,000 Christian tourists came to Bethlehem.

At the Israeli checkpoint at the entrance of the city, it took seconds to pass through Israeli security. Just inside the city, restaurants that had been filled on previous Christmas holidays were empty or closed altogether. Around a small table, seven local Christian men ate peanuts and chocolates. All sipped whiskey – a rare public site in this increasingly Islamic city where Islamic law is unofficially enforced by local gangs.

The men said they did not want to discuss politics, or their lives as Christians. The men smiled, and shrugged their shoulders. “We are not talking about politics,” one man said after a long pause.

On the way to Manger Square the only reminder of the Christmas holiday was a dusty, inflatable Santa Claus that sat in front of a variety store. Palestinian flags decorated the streets, along with posters of a Palestinian who was killed after attacking Israelis.

Few tourists were in any of the stores, and the streets were filled with Palestinian police who held Kalashnikov rifles.

At Manger Square, Bethlehem’s Christians celebrated their holiday by dressing in their best clothes, and preparing to attend the midnight mass. The Christian men wore new suits, slacks and shoes; the women wore dresses, skirts, jeans and makeup. For women, Christmas would be the only day of the year they could dress like Westerners in their home city. Beginning Dec. 26, Islamic fundamentalists prohibit Christian women from wearing short skirts publicly, and there is a growing pressure for the women to cover their hair and the rest of their bodies like Muslim women.

The gathering was not solely a Christian event. In 1996, the Palestinian Authority declared Christmas as a national holiday and began to downplay the Christian origins of the day. As a result, Bethlehem’s Palestinian Muslims also jammed the square, and were joined by Muslims from Hebron, Jenin, and the nearby populated refugee camps, who stayed in the once-Christian square late into the evening.

“I wouldn’t dare take my wife and my children to the square at night. I don’t want the Moslems to harass them,” said Kondo, a local merchant. “Ten years ago all the Christians rejoiced, and choirs from all over the world were singing; it was a real happy evening.”

Publicly Christians will not talk about their plight in this city, and many fear for their lives. Christians say Muslims have targeted them for a least a decade; many have been publicly attacked and hospitalized; many say that small arguments often lead to violent attacks from mobs of Muslims.

Even in their homes they spoke in hushed tones.

“The future here is very black,” said Jonathan, a 65-year-old Christian merchant who sat near his Christmas tree on the holiday, and sipped coffee with his sons Peter and Matthew.

Peter and Matthew, who are both in their 20s, say their only hope is to emigrate. The two say they face a life of daily humiliation as Christians by their Muslim neighbors.

While they have both been attacked by Muslim mobs in the past, the brothers say they’re even angrier about how the birthplace of Jesus – the Church of the Nativity – is treated by local Muslims. In the spring of 2002, Palestinian gunmen loyal to Arafat’s forces held more than100 people hostage, and took over the church for three weeks. Using the church as a fortress, the gunmen used pages of its holy bibles for toilet paper, emptied the charity boxes, and also stole gold and silver icons that had been part of the church for centuries. They also set a section of the church on fire.

On Christmas Eve, Muslims also came to the church. During the mass, Peter and Matthew noticed a group of Muslims smoking cigarettes while sitting on the church floor.

“It made us very angry,” Matthew said bitterly. “Why can’t the Muslims honor and respect our holy place?”

‘The Lord is my refuge’

BETHLEHEM – On Christmas eve, Pastor Hanna Massad read the bible and prayed in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.

Massad’s friend, Rami Ayyad didn’t have that opportunity. On October 7, Ayyad’s body was found face down in Gaza near the Christian bible store where he worked as an accountant and bookkeeper. He had been shot and stabbed numerous times. Just two weeks shy of 30th birthday; he left a pregnant wife and two small children.

“Rami’s death is a shock. We went through a difficult time and that’s why we are here in Bethlehem,” said Massad, with a pained look.

This has been a bittersweet week for Massad, a Palestinian-American who heads the 200-member Gaza Baptist Church. Just days before Christmas he came to Bethlehem with 400 other Christians from Gaza, hoping to find peace in a land where Christians say they are increasingly being persecuted by Palestinian Muslims.

“There is pressure and discrimination on all levels for all of the Christians in Gaza,” said Massad, who sat in a small house in East Bethlehem that belonged to his wife’s family.

In the Gaza strip, controlled by the Islamic fundamentalist Hamas, there are just 2,000 Christians living among 1.4 million Muslims. In the entire strip, there are only five small Christian chapels, a Christian school and a Christian bible store – the Holy Bible Society. Massad’s wife now serves as its director. The society has branches in more than 100 countries.

Massad was born in Gaza and has served as the church’s pastor since 1987. From 1991-97, he lived in America, obtained his citizenship and earned a Ph.D. in Theology from Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA.

Massad, who is a medium-built man with sad brown eyes, sat on a sofa on a corner in the room and reflected on the violence that Gazan Christians have faced in recent months.

In 2006, and again this year, the bible store was firebombed by Palestinian fundamentalist Muslims. Massad said store employees did not hand out pamphlets or proselytize local Muslims, and did not give away Bibles. In fact, people were required to sign a paper acknowledging that they were buying a Bible on their own free will, he said. Still, militant Muslims linked to Al Qaeda continued to harass the stores employees.

On Oct. 6, the militants fulfilled their threats and kidnapped Ayyad shortly after he closed the bookstore. Massad’s wife, Pauline, said friends had called his mobile phone when he did not arrive from work. He told them he was running late.

On Sunday, instead of going to church, Ayyad was buried after church services.

After the funeral, Assad’s mother, Anisa, said he had “redeemed Christ with his blood.”

Ayyad was born in Gaza to a Greek Orthodox family but had attended Massad’s Baptist church since he was a child. “I’ve known him since has 10,” said Massad, who called him a “man of peace.”

At 29, Ayyad had already fulfilled many of his dreams. Married, with two children, he was just three courses shy of receiving his bachelor’s degree from Gaza’s Open University. “He had a very good sense of humor,” Massad recalled. “He liked to laugh and people liked to be around him. He liked to serve.”

When he was not at work at the bible store, or volunteering as the church’s youth director, he spent most of his time with his two sons, George, 2, Wissam, 1, and his wife Pauline. At the time of his murder, she was in her sixth month of pregnancy.

Now, with just weeks to go before she gives birth, Pauline has decided to call her yet-to-born daughter Samma or heaven in Arabic. Massad said that she chose the name for a specific reason. “She believes her husband is in heaven,” explained Massad.

For years, Massad said Gaza’s Christians have been living in fear – even before Hamas seized control of Gaza last June. “There is no law in Gaza. Nobody can count on anybody,” he said. “Even before Hamas came to power, the Palestinian Authority police and security said we cannot control the city and protect you,” said Massad.

Hamas, which has instilled Sharia or Islamic law in Gaza, has made life even more difficult for Gaza’s tiny Christian community. “Christians can’t openly wear their crosses outside. In the streets, because of the pressure, our women have started to cover their heads like the Muslims. Our people have become afraid,” said Massad.

After Ayyad’s murder, Hamas officials promised to investigate the vicious attack. Three days after the murder, Hamas security told Massad that they had suspects in the case. Several days went by, however, and no arrests occurred. Massad did not accuse Hamas of being behind the murder. He said he suspects militant Islamic fundamentalists who came to Gaza through Egypt during the last three years of being behind the attack. Today, no arrests have been made in the Ayyad murder.

He said local Palestinians have joined the fundamentalists, which now number in the hundreds. Over the last year, the groups have burned Gaza Internet cafes, prohibited the consumption of alcohol, and attacked churches. After the bible store was firebombed in April, people almost stopped coming to the store, said Massad.

Christians have lived in Gaza for centuries, and the community’s last remaining Christians now live in the Rimal section of Gaza City. Most are college educated professionals who work as engineers, doctors and merchants. At Massad’s church, activities are offered to the close-knit community almost every day – on Sunday, morning and evening services are held; on Monday, classes are held for children; Tuesdays are for women’s activities; on Wednesdays, parishioners attend Bible classes; Thursdays are for youth activities, and Saturday, university students attend the church.

The Bible Society also offers relief work and language and computer training courses to Christians and Muslims.

Relations between Gaza’s Muslims and Christians were good for centuries. Muslims respected them and some lived side by side in refugee camps. For years, Christian welfare organizations also provided aid to Gaza’s Muslims. But, relations began to sour over the last decade during the Palestinian Authority’s rule. And since Hamas won the Palestinian elections in Jan. of 2006, relations have between the Muslims and Christians have deteriorated.

In June, when Hamas seized power, they burned a chapel in a Catholic church and school, and damaged the rest of the building. And, Massad said his church has not been immune to the threats. “We receive threats from time to tie. Several times they have put bombs in churches,” he said.

In Sept. of 2006, militant groups tied to Hamas fired bullets into the Greek Orthodox church in the Zytoon section of Gaza. The same day, a group called “The Sword of Islam” declared war on Christians in Gaza, and threatened to bomb all of Gaza’s churches.

Publicly, the leaders of Hamas say they will protect local Christians, and speak glowingly about Gaza’s Christians. But, Islamic militants have openly questioned that policy, and have called for violence against Christians.

“Unfortunately, there is not much law in Gaza so in many ways you are alone. So when you say the Lord is my refuge, that’s real,” said Massad.

Last year was not an easy year for Gaza’s 2,000 Christians, and 2008 could be bleaker. Increasingly, Christian relief agencies, and non-governmental organizations are leaving Gaza, bowing to the Islamic fundamentalist’s pressure. Even journalists are leaving the area after the BBC’s Alan Johnston was kidnapped and held captive in Gaza between March and July. Only after he agreed to convert to Islam was he released.

Last week, a convoy of 400 Christians left Gaza for Bethlehem. All carried suitcases and many were not happy about leaving their homes and relatives. Still, many left with the realization that they would not return.

“There’s a lot of pressure. Some people want to stay here, they don’t want to go back, and some people already sold their property and came to Bethlehem,” said Massad.

Soon, Massad will leave the quiet of the Shepard Fields of the Bethlehem hills and return to the Palestinian’s Islamic stronghold of Gaza.

Said Massad, “We could go to the [United] states to live, but we feel our time is not finished in Gaza.”

 

Christians Uneasy In Bethlehem

 

BETHLEHEM – In a small house just yards from the Church of the Nativity, a middle-aged man sat in silence and sipped tea. Jonathan, who is 65, traces his family’s roots in Bethlehem back more than 2,000 years. He is a member of one of the oldest Christian families in the city.

As he held the teacup, a voice from a loudspeaker near the Mosque of Omar – located opposite the Church of the Nativity – cut through the silence. “Allah Hu Akbar,” or “Allah is the mighty God,” the voice chanted in Arabic.

Jonathan’s hands shook and he began to speak.

“It makes me nervous,” he said, turning toward the back of the kitchen and pointing in the direction of the mosque.

As Christians, Jonathan and his son Peter say they have good reason to be nervous about their Muslim neighbors. They say that over the last 20 years relations between the two religious groups have deteriorated, with Christians subjected to daily intimidation and humiliation by Muslims.

“Nobody knows about our situation here in Bethlehem, but a lot of things are happening here that is making our lives unbearable,” Jonathan said.

The men say that for more than a decade, the Palestinian Authority has demanded blackmail money from Christian businessmen and families, and over the last two years has taken land from several Christian families without compensating them. They also say they are unsafe on their streets and are ostracized and subjected to vicious beatings by Muslims just because they are Christians. In addition, they say Bethlehem’s Muslims regularly sexually harass women and young girls, and sometimes force them to convert and marry Muslims.

“We are a miserable people now,” said Jonathan, who stands just over five feet and is white-haired with a mustache.

The fear that has swept over the tiny Christian community has caused Christians to leave in droves each year for the last two decades. When Jonathan was born in 1942, the city’s Christians were the majority population. “Relations between Christians and Moslems were good then; it was a quiet city, there was no violence and no fundamentalism,” said Jonathan.

Up until 1972, the Christian population held a majority in Bethlehem. That year, just five mosques were in the city. Today, there are around 90 mosques in Bethlehem, and just 16 percent of Bethlehem is Christian.

In the 1980s, Muslims began to move into the city in large numbers and build additional mosques. At that time Islamic fundamentalism also began to flourish in the city, with radicals gaining a foothold into the political and social structure of the city. By the mid-90s, the district’s borders expanded, and former Palestinian President Yasser Arafat allowed new Muslim neighborhoods to be built downtown, near Manger Square and the Church of the Nativity. Also, at that time, Arafat removed a Christian as the district’s governor, and replaced him with a Muslim appointee.

By 1991, said Jonathan, Muslims began to preach anti-Christian teachings in mosques, with religious clerics delivering anti-Christian sermons over mosque loudspeakers. “They said the Christians are criminals; they collaborated with the Jews. They also talked about Christian girls on the loudspeakers; they said they dressed improperly and drank alcohol, and that Christians didn’t believe in God. They said only the religion of Moslems, and Mohammed is the true religion, and all the others are false.”

The public accusations sent shockwaves through the community, and a local bishop unsuccessfully tried to create a dialogue with Moslem leaders. The Christian mayor at the time was powerless to act against the fundamentalists.

By 1992, Christians began to avoid shopping in the downtown market, just steps away from Manger Square and the Church of the Nativity. They also had to watch out for angry mobs of Muslims intent on beating, and sometimes maiming, local Christians.

Seven years ago, Jonathan’s son Peter was preparing to go to church with two friends. As the three Christians stood outside of Peter’s home, they were approached by seven Muslims who swore at them for wearing crucifixes. Soon the three were surrounded by a mob that had grown to more than 100 angry men.

“The group began to chant ‘Allah Akbar’ and then started to beat us,” Peter remembered. As the three lay on the ground unable to move, they were repeatedly punched, kicked and beaten with sticks. One of Peter’s friends had a crucifix ripped from his neck, and later learned that it was sold in a local market.

The Palestinian Authority police arrived 15 minutes after the attack, and the men were hospitalized.

“The police didn’t help us. They didn’t arrest anybody. I am lucky I am alive,” said Peter.

That year, Muslim attacks against Christians became more frequent, and turned deadly. In 2001, Atif Abayat, who formerly served as a commander of Arafat’s Tanzim military division, tried to rape two Christian teenage sisters who lived in Beit Jallah. When they refused his advances, he killed both.

In 2002, Mohammed Abayat, another commander of Arafat’s Al Aksa Brigades, raped a Christian woman in Beit Sahur.

While the men did not deny the charges, they were never arrested by Palestinian police.

Also in 2002, a Bethlehem Christian who had been paying blackmail money to the Palestinian Authority for several years decided he would no longer pay the bribes. After having refused, he was found dead. Local Christians say he was killed by the Palestinian military. “They threatened him many times and they killed him,” said Jonathan.

Last year, a Bethlehem Christian was arrested and faced charges of raping a Palestinian boy. Charges were dropped after DNA revealed that the boy had not been molested.

“They wanted money,” said Peter, who regularly attends the restaurant owned by the man that was accused of rape. The night of the alleged attack, the boy entered the eatery, and asked the man for money. When he declined, the boy went home and fabricated the story. Within minutes, a mob of angry Muslims came back and destroyed the restaurant.

While sexual harassment is a frequent complaint by Christian women, more and more of the women are being targeted for conversion by Moslem men. Six months ago, a 17-year-old Christian Palestinian-American girl was found in a village near Hebron after she was allegedly kidnapped from her Bethlehem home. Muslims, however, say she agreed to come. After her family and Catholic priest located her, she was found garbed in a hijab – a Moslem head covering – and told her family that she had converted to Islam. When her family tried to remove her from the house, they were met with armed resistance.

“It was a real war,” says Faise Omar, the father of the man who brought the girl to the village. “There was a lot of shooting from both sides but I had a lot of weapons and they didn’t come close to my side. All of the [nearby] refugee camp came to our aid and fought against them. It was not just a war over the couple. It was a war between Muslims and Christians.”

After a representative of the American Consulate intervened, the girl left the village and flew to the US. She recently married a Christian man and now lives in Jerusalem.

Omar said the real reason why the woman was released was that he didn’t want his son to marry a Christian.

These stories, and the day-to-day hardships they face as Christians, make Jonathan and Peter want to leave their home town.

“If I have a chance to go anywhere I will go,” said Jonathan, who wants to sell his house and move to the United States or Central America. “The problem is, even if I try to sell my house, who will buy it?”

Peter, who never thought he would contemplate leaving Bethlehem, now dreams of moving to the US – where his sister lives. Out of the 15 students in his high school class from 1997, more than half have left the city. Between 2001 and 2004, 3,000 Christians emigrated from Bethlehem, and during the last six months 300 have left.

“Our life here is finished,” says Peter. “One day we will come back and find only churches here and no Christians.”

Tense Relations Between Christians And Muslims Have Changed Bethlehem’s Demographic

 

BETHLEHEM – Sixty years ago, when Jordan occupied Bethlehem after the 1948 war, 80 percent of Bethlehem’s population was Christian. At the time, a respected bishop gathered his parishioners together and announced, “A day will come when you will visit this city as a pilgrim because there will be no more Christians left in the city.”

That vision has turned into a prophecy, explained Shibley Kando, who owns one of the biggest Christian souvenir stores in Bethlehem.

“Now we are only 16 percent of the population. Every year the number is declining, what does the future look like? We don’t know. This is the reality of our life. Thank God we are still living here.”

Over the last two decades, life has become increasingly difficult for the tiny Christian community of Bethlehem. Christians here say they face daily threats and intimidation by their Muslim neighbors. Blackmail and land theft by Muslims tied to the Palestinian Authority is common here, they say. In addition, Christians say they are subject to anti-Christian verbal abuse and attacks from Muslims.

A 2007 religious freedom report on Israel and West Bank and Gaza, issued by the US Department of State, confirmed the allegations. The report stated, “The Palestinian Authority has not taken sufficient action to remedy past harassment and intimidation of Christian residents of Bethlehem by the city’s Muslim majority. The PA judiciary failed to adjudicate numerous cases of seizures of Christian-owned land in the Bethlehem area by criminal gangs. PA officials appear to have been complicit in property extortion of Palestinian Christian residents, as there were reports of PA security forces and judicial officials colluding with gang members in property extortion schemes. Several attacks against Christians in Bethlehem went unaddressed by the PA.”

This has led to a Christian exodus from the city – from 2001 to 2004, 3,000 Christians left the city for the US, Canada, Europe, Central America and South America. Jonathan, a lay leader at the Church of the Nativity, said that 300 Christians from Bethlehem have moved.

Palestinian Christians from abroad have risen to high political status in many countries. According to a Palestinian Authority census, 148,000 Christians with ties to Bethlehem live in Central America and South America. In El Salvador, the president is Tony Saca Gonzalez, whose family left Bethlehem last century; in Honduras, Carlos Roberto Flores, whose mother came from Bethlehem, served as a Palestinian official from 1998 to 2002.

Mr. Kando, a tall man in his early 40s, plans to stay – at least for now. Many of his friends have moved abroad, and just five out of his 28 high school classmates are still in Bethlehem. A lawlessness, and lack of justice, has spread throughout the city, he said.

“Life here is not easy. The Palestinian Authority is not providing enough law and order. Palestinian Authority police are loyal, first to their friends and family. If you have a disagreement with a person, and that person’s brother is a policeman, then the policeman will be loyal to his brother first,” said Mr. Kando.

These days, Bethlehem’s dusty streets and sidewalks are empty much of the time. Just 6,000 tourists came for Christmas – down from the more prosperous days in the mid-’90s when Palestinians and Israelis first made peace. At that time, 20,000 to 30,000 tourists would visit during the holiday, and restaurants, gift shops, and churches were full.

Bethlehem’s economy, which is almost entirely dependent on tourism, has been hard hit in recent years. On Christmas day, parts of the city seemed like a ghost town. And many of the Christians who still live here stayed inside their home to celebrate the holiday. In past years, they would have spent much of their time with friends and family celebrating at Manger Square, near the Church of the Nativity. Since the Palestinian Authority made Christmas an official national holiday in 1996, local Christians say the real meaning of their holiday has taken a backseat to the Muslim festivities which now take place opposite the site where Jesus was born.

“We worship on Christmas but Muslims think that the holiday is like Carnival in Brazil,” explained William Kando, a cousin of Shibley, who also lives in Bethlehem. Thousands of Muslims from nearby cities, like Hebron, now flock to the city to do things they can’t do in their own village, said Mr. Kando, such as drinking alcohol and looking at Christian women who do not wear hijabs, or head coverings. A decade ago, before the Palestinian Authority took control over the city from Israel, the Kandos say Christmas was a much happier time.

“Until 1993, the Israelis put up checkpoints at the entrance to the Nativity Square and Manger Square, and only Christians were allowed there,” said William. “Today, if you want to go to Manger Square on Christmas Eve, you have to go with a bodyguard because 98 percent of the people are Muslims.”

Christians say they have limited access to the squares near the birthplace of Jesus, and they also say it is dangerous to walk or shop in the city’s main market, just yards from the squares. Many say they have had their crosses and crucifixes ripped from their necks from gangs who resell them to Muslim merchants.

Christians still can pray at the church but no longer spend time outside fraternizing. Many are upset that the area is off-limits much of the time to Christians. Muslims use the square for their own political activities. For example, last January the Muslims set up a tent to protest against an Israeli archaeological dig in Jerusalem. Muslims also use the area for sports, and in fact, during the summer the square opposite the Church of the Nativity is turned into a soccer field by Muslims.

“They use the door of the Church of the Nativity as their goal,” said Peter, 28, a Christian TV producer who hopes to move to the US soon. “They have no respect for our religion. If we did this at a mosque they would kill us.”

“The 24th of December is the worst and saddest day in Bethlehem,” said Shibley Kando. “The joy and the happiness that we once had does not exist anymore. They took us out of the celebration.”

The day is particularly difficult for Christian women and girls who celebrate the holiday publicly. Sexual harassment by Muslims against the women and girls is a daily occurrence, they say, but it reaches a peak on Christmas eve when thousands of Muslims jam the squares near the church.

“My friends’ daughter got home after the midnight mass and saw that she had red blotches all over her body. They were from the Muslim men who pinched her, and she couldn’t do anything to stop them,” said William Kando.

As their population has diminished, their political clout has fallen. While Palestinian law still dictates that the city’s mayor must be a Christian, just three Christians – including the mayor – sit on the council that runs the city. For the first time in the city’s history, the council has a strong coalition led by Islamic fundamentalists – five of the members belong to Hamas, one to Islamic Jihad, and six are Fatah representatives.

Even before the 2007 elections the Palestinian Authority granted Hamas permission to build its largest center in the West Bank just one-half mile from Jesus’s birthplace. The nine-story building can be seen throughout the city, and is crowned by golden-domed mosques on its top floor. The building also contains a madrassa for Muslims to study shariah – Islamic law – a children’s school, Hamas’ administrative offices, and a senior center.

As their power has diminished, Christmas decorations have become scarce in the city. In the downtown area there were some illuminated stars and some Christmas trees near the Church of the Nativity, but for the most part just Palestinian flags hung down from street lights.

While Christians plot their steps before they travel throughout the city, and sometimes do not openly display their crosses and crucifixes in public, the opposite is true for Muslims. On the day after Christmas, a middle aged Muslim man spread a small rug on a sidewalk near the church, dropped to his knees and prayed as bystanders walked around him.

While the holiday is not the same as it once was for Christians, they still show their solidarity on the day before Christmas, when Christian youth marching bands from Bethlehem and other nearby villages parade through the downtown streets dressed in the boy and girl scout uniforms. Many carry flags and hold banners from their organizations.

The scout groups are organized by church leaders throughout the city and represent several denominations, including, Latin, Anglican, Lutheran and Greek Orthodox.

Every church has its own private school, managed and subsidized by religious organizations from Europe and the U.S.

“Our children do not attend public school. In public schools here they focus on teaching Islam, and it’s not an option for the kids. Children must study Islam in the public schools,” said Shibley Kando. “Also, in our Christian schools, the level of education is higher and we prefer this education for our children. That’s why wealthy Muslims send their kids to our schools. And we teach Islam to their children.”

 

Bethlehem Churches Bear Brunt Of Religious Hatred

 

BETHLEHEM – In certain parts of the Holy Land, you can’t go too far without seeing a church.

For centuries, millions of Christian pilgrims visited the Holy Land to pray in the holy houses of worship. Palestinian Christians from all denominations who built these churches for centuries had the freedom to worship, without any problems from the nearby Muslims.

Things began to change a decade ago, after the Palestinian Authority took control of major sections of the Holy Land. And, as Islamic fundamentalism has risen in those territories during that time, relations between the two religions began to deteriorate. As Islam has grown, lawlessness has spread throughout the territories, where Islamic militants have been emboldened to act – sometimes illegally – to advance their cause.

Christians now say they have experienced anti-Christian sentiment from Muslims that have ranged from verbal accusations to vicious beatings and murder. And basic holidays that Christians always celebrated have now been forbidden. In December, the Hamas government in Gaza banned any celebrations of New Year’s eve and New Year’s day, a traditional Christian holiday period. Also, in the West Bank, an Islamic group, “Keepers of Sharia (Islamic Law) warned residents not to celebrate the holidays.

Besides being shaken down by the Palestinian Authority for blackmail money, and having their land stolen in elaborate schemes from Palestinian Authority officials, some Christians say they have looked on helplessly as they suffered what they call the ultimate injustice: the burning and desecration of their holy churches.

Christians are still reeling from September, 2006, when seven churches in the West Bank and Gaza were attacked in a three day period after Muslims were infuriated by comments made by Pope Benedict VVI about Islam and the prophet Mohammed. The pope’s comments followed the publication of cartoons depicting Mohammed in a Dutch newspaper. After the churches were attacked by Islamic fundamentalists, a Hamas leader, Imad Hamto, called for the Pope to repent and to convert to Islam.

The attacks were not the first on churches in the Holy Land in recent years. In 2001, Palestinian gunmen took over Christian-Palestinian churches in Beit Jallah – a city near Bethlehem – so they could fire into Israeli neighborhoods. At the time, Palestinian snipers said they took control of

the holy churches because they were confident the Israelis would not attack them.

And, some say the worst case took place in 2002, when more than 100 Palestinian fighters loyal to former PA President Yasser Arafat took over the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and held dozens of hostages – including priests and nuns. Inside, the gunmen used bibles for toilet

paper, emptied the church’s charity boxes, and sold gold and silver crosses that had been in the church for centuries. They even lit a fire in a section of a church during the siege.

Christians say that the 2006 church burnings and attacks were a turning point in Christian-Muslim relations in the Holy Land.

“The Islamic people want to kill us. That’s their principle and belief. They don’t want Christians in this country. They don’t want to hear our names; they don’t want to see us. That’s the reality,” said Reverend Tomey Dahoud, who heads the Greek Orthodox Church in Taubas, a city near Jenin.

Dahoud’s church, which was built more than 100 years ago, suffered extensive damage after its entrance hall was firebombed in Sept. of 2006. That attack sent shivers through the remaining 14 Christians in Taubas, causing some to consider leaving.

“We’ve had problems before with Muslims but they never touched the house of God,” explained Dahoud. “What does it mean to set a church on fire? It’s terrorism, it’s a crime.”

In Tulkaram, the last Christian family that takes care of the 200-year-old Greek Orthodox Church say they’ve had enough and want to practice their religion freely.

“We are preparing to move abroad to a place where we can live a better life as Christians,” said Reverand Dahoud Dimitry, who heads the Tulkaram’s Saint George Greek Orthodox church that burned to the ground in an arson attack on Sept. 16, 2006.

More than 30 years ago, the Christian community numbered close to 2000, but now Dimitry’s family of 12 is the last remaining Christian family in this Islamic stronghold.

To date no one has been arrested or charged with the arson, which occurred after extremists poured gasoline throughout the church and on its alter.

The church was rebuilt but there are no funds for a security guard or for security cameras. During the fire, all of the church’s contents except one bible were incinerated.

“We had two icons from the 15th century and they were destroyed. We had a small library and the most important thing that we had was a registry of all the names of Christians who had ever lived in Tulkaram. All of that burned and now we don’t have any records of our ancestors.”

In Nablus, there are now just 700 Christians left – down from 3,000 just 40 years ago. And, last year, the small Christian community was hard hit after four of its churches were burned by Islamic fundamentalists following the Pope’s comments.

“We were afraid,” explained Jamal Mahmud, who works at the Jacob Well Greek Orthodox Church in Nablus. Mahmud said during the days when Muslim rioted, 25 Molotov cocktails were thrown at the church, which suffered minimal damage. “When somebody throws a Molotov cocktail at you it’s frightening,” added Mahmud.

“The future will be even more dangerous for Christian people, added Reverand Yousef Jibran Saade, the spiritual leader of the Greek Catholic Church in Nablus. Saade’s church was firebombed and riddled with bullets by unknown attackers on Sept. 16, 2006. No one has been arrested for the

attacks, and, like other West Bank Christian clerics, he said the attack caused parishioners to consider moving abroad.

In Gaza, following the Pope’s remarks, Islamic extremists bombed a 1,400-year-old Greek Orthodox Church. In addition, a group of Catholic nuns were threatened, and a bomb was placed outside of another church.

The attack and threats instilled fear into many of the church’s parishioners. But even before the September, 2006 rioting, the small Christian community of 2,000 – mostly Greek Orthodox – felt unsafe. Since Hamas won the Palestinian elections in January of 2006, Sharia – or Islamic law – has

been the informal law of the land. These days, Christian women cover their hair like Muslim women so as to not attract attention.

“It is dangerous for Christians in Gaza,” explained Pastor Hanna Massad, a Palestinian-American who runs the 200-member Gaza Baptist Church.

Massad’s church has been repeatedly threatened by fundamentalists in the last several years, and the bible store that his wife runs in Gaza City was firebombed twice in the last year. And in October, a bible store worker and one of his parishioners, Rami Ayyad, were kidnapped and murdered by Islamic fundamentalists. He was found near the Christian book store.

In Bethlehem, the threats, shakedowns, and anti-Christian sentiment have taken their toll on former Bethlehem Mayor Hanna Nasser. Nasser said the community is still in shock over the 2002 takeover of the 1,400-year-old Church of the Nativity by Palestinian gunmen.

“For Christians it was a brutal feeling,” said Nasser, who was born in Bethlehem, and also baptized and married inside the Church of the Nativity. “We were astonished and very angry. The church was not destroyed but we as Christians in Bethlehem, remain wounded.”

At 70, Nasser plans to stay in the city. But, like other Christian families that trace their roots to this city for centuries, he has watched family members, like his son and daughter leave the city.

“There is no future for Christians,” said Nasser.

Reverend Tomey Dahoud also says the pressure is mounting for all Christians to leave Palestinian-controlled lands. Still, he is prepared to stay, even if it means enduring violence. “Even if they are going to set fire to all of our churches we will stay and die here,” said Dahoud.

Mapping Qatar’s $400 Billion Footprint in the UnitedStates

Foreword

By Jonathan Schanzer

Why has a country of just 330,000 citizens that is half the size of New Jersey and a leading patron of the Muslim Brotherhood plowed $400 billion dollars into the United States? This amounts to approximately $1.2 million per Qatari citizen — an enormous sum.

FDD’s Natalie Ecanow has labored for more than a year, collecting the receipts for these Qatari transactions, most of which have taken place over the past decade. But as Natalie notes, $400 billion is a lowball estimate. She erred on the side of caution. If you take the word of Qatari government estimates or even the White House, the total number may exceed $1.2 trillion.

Some Americans may welcome the generosity of the Qatari regime. After all, one could argue that a great many of these investments — spanning energy, defense, biotech and other important sectors — serve to benefit the U.S. economy and U.S. citizens. One could also argue that Qatar, like Japan, Canada, or other countries that sink billions in the United States, simply seeks return on investment.

But Qatar is different. There are more than a few reasons to question the largesse of the Qatari government. At the end of the day, Qatar is ruled by an Islamist, autocratic regime; Freedom House consistently ranks the country as “Not Free” in its annual Freedom in the World survey.1 And Doha’s failure to guarantee the rights of its citizens is not the biggest problem. Rather, it is the country’s tendency to support jihadi causes in the Middle East that raises significantly more concern. The country’s horrific track record in this regard distinguishes Qatar from other Gulf states that spread their wealth in America.

Though the U.S. government has delineated Qatar as a “Major Non-NATO Ally” and has positioned its Combined Air Operations Center at the Al-Udeid base in Qatar, this regime may qualify as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism.” The regime has sheltered Al-Qaeda.2 It was a patron for the Taliban before the group recaptured Afghanistan, ending America’s intervention there.3 The government is a longstanding patron of Hamas, the terrorist group that plunged the Middle East into violence on October 7, 2023.4 Finally, it is the primary patron of the Muslim Brotherhood, a global network of violent and nonviolent Islamist groups that seek the downfall of the West.5 Several branches of this network have recently been sanctioned by the U.S. government.

Beyond that, the regime in Qatar has been embroiled in other scandals that should give Americans pause. Qatar bribed its way to hosting the World Cup in 2022. Later that year, the scandal known as “Qatargate” rocked the European Union when Qatari bribes to European parliamentarians were exposed.6 The bribes were reportedly designed to buy influence to rehabilitate Qatar’s image amid reports that more than 6,500 migrant workers had died during the construction of the country’s World Cup stadiums.7

To whitewash these and other offenses, the Qataris wield the Al-Jazeera Media Network, which broadcasts in multiple languages and multiple formats, to spread the regime’s messages.8 Al Jazeera’s U.S.-based affiliate, AJ+, has defied U.S. law for over five years by failing to register as a foreign agent.9

It is for these reasons, and perhaps others, that Qatar’s massive investments in the United States should be scrutinized. Some of these investments include naked influence-peddling — from sponsorship of the annual congressional baseball game to annual White House correspondents’ dinner parties.10 The Qataris spend an enormous amount on lobby groups and public relations, which helps ensure that their investments continue with minimal scrutiny.

Perhaps most disturbing is the massive amount this small Islamic state has invested in American education. Qatar has half as many citizens as Washington, DC, has residents. Yet somehow, it has surpassed China as the largest foreign funder of American colleges and universities. This is baffling. It is safe to say that the regime in Doha is not a stalwart champion of traditional liberal arts education curricula. Even more disturbing: the regime is funding public K-12 schools, engaging American children in the classroom at a young age.

In an era of heightened cognitive combat, disinformation, and foreign influence, it is time for the United States government to look not just at China and Russia, but other autocratic states — and maybe democracies, too. Examining foreign capital is especially important when the numbers rise above a certain threshold. While it might be fair to quibble over what that number should be, it is safe to say that $400 billion, let alone $1.2 trillion, is probably far beyond what Americans would deem acceptable.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) is a U.S. government body that scrutinizes investments by foreign governments in industries and businesses that could leave America vulnerable. It is time for CFIUS to address concerns about foreign influence in addition to national security risks.

The involvement of CFIUS need not lead to a ban on Qatari investments in the United States. To be sure, foreign direct investment (FDI) by countries of all stripes is an important way to attract wealth to the United States. But not all foreign money should be welcomed. This country is not a charity. Nor is it for sale. It is time to take a closer look at all the ways that Qatari and other foreign money may be buying influence.

The following report by FDD’s Natalie Ecanow provides a good first glimpse at Qatari dollars in America. It is certainly not the final word on the problem. But it should prompt a serious discussion. From there, one can only hope that a more serious national dialogue, followed by legislation or other government measures, can begin to tackle the problem.

America should be open to foreign direct investment, but not unwanted foreign influence. Qatar may only be one of many nondemocratic regimes seeking to buy sway in this country. Guardrails are needed now.

Introduction

If preparations proceed on schedule, the $400 million jet that Qatar gifted President Donald Trump will join the Air Force One fleet by America’s 250th birthday in July.11 When Trump first accepted the proffered “palace in the sky” in May 2025, a firestorm erupted in Washington.12 While criticism from across the aisle is to be expected, many of the president’s strongest supporters also expressed deep reservations. As a New York Sun editorial noted, “sometimes the scandal is not what is illegal but what is legal.” This gift, as the Sun observed, comes from a monarchy that has financed America’s adversaries, pointing out that, “The Framers understood that gifts from other nations are rarely animated by unalloyed generosity.”13 The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board expressed similar concerns about an American president being indebted to Qatari royals. “If the emir calls the White House to share his views on Iran, Israel and the region, won’t he expect the President to pick up the phone? Should voters even have to wonder?” the board asked.14

Trump defended his decision on the grounds that accepting the plane simply makes sense from a budgetary perspective. He then defended the Qataris by asserting, “They also gave $5.1 trillion worth of investment in addition to the jet.”15 It is unclear where Trump got this number, although one week earlier, the White House announced a $1.2 trillion “economic commitment” from Qatar. An official fact sheet identified $243.5 billion of deals between U.S. and Qatari firms in various stages of negotiation but did not explain how Washington and Doha will “generate” the remainder of the headline figure of $1.2 trillion.16 That same week, a lengthy analysis by The Free Press found $93.7 billion of Qatari spending in the United States — an unusual sum for a country roughly the size of Connecticut with a citizen population smaller than that of Washington, DC.17

Yet the actual amount of money that Qatar has spent, invested, and donated is at least four times higher, reaching $400 billion since 2000. This figure derives from a careful investigation of regulatory filings, business databases, lobbying disclosures, and other public sources of information. For Qatar, a country home to approximately 330,000 citizens, that sum represents approximately $1.2 million per capita. And the true figure is higher. There is a long list of investments, especially in venture capital, for which a monetary value is not publicly reported.

Qatari money touches nearly every industry in America, from defense and energy to real estate, media, and sports. Doha’s ventures have entailed a cornucopia of transactions, including investments, grants, purchases, and pledges. Thus, there is no single word or term that captures the ways in which Qatar deploys its wealth. Some of these transactions are straightforward investments that yield returns. Others, like employing lobbyists, amount to direct spending on influence. Many fall somewhere in between. Yet even a profit-driven business venture can double as a source of influence. When Doha brings capital and jobs to an American city or state, its leaders will naturally become more concerned about Qatari interests.

This relationship between business ventures and political influence takes on special importance when a foreign power is providing the funds. In each case here, the investment vehicle or grantor is either government-controlled or run by members of Qatar’s ruling family. None are independent commercial actors in the way that British Petroleum or Toyota Motors are. For that reason, it becomes especially important to examine how economic relationships may serve the political agenda of the Al-Thani ruling family, whose interests and priorities are often antithetical or even hostile to those of the United States. To be clear, this memo does not claim that any of the ventures it describes are illicit or unlawful. Nonetheless, Qatari dollars raise red flags because, as the Sun’s editorial board noted, the scandal may be what is legal.

The nexus between wealth and influence also takes on special importance because Qatar has persuaded many in Washington that it is a trustworthy partner despite its patronage of Hamas, the Taliban, and the Muslim Brotherhood.18 Similarly, Doha’s state-owned Al Jazeera Media Network amplifies Islamist propaganda for an audience of hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide. The country is also at the center of corruption probes in Europe, Israel, and Washington, and made headlines for allegedly buying hosting rights for the 2022 FIFA World Cup.19 Clearly, Doha is unafraid to punch above its weight by walking the line between licit and illicit financial activity.

Qatar’s record notwithstanding, both the Biden and Trump administrations have elevated Doha’s status. The former designated Qatar a Major Non-NATO Ally in 2022 and admitted the emirate to the U.S. Visa Waiver Program in 2024. The latter then extended U.S. security assurances to Qatar in September 2025. The two administrations share few foreign policy instincts, yet both chose to upgrade ties with Qatar rather than proceed with caution.

The United States welcomes foreign investment, which creates jobs and drives economic growth. But when an autocratic, Islamist regime with a record of bribery and terror finance sinks over a million dollars per citizen into the United States, it is worth asking why.

Defense

$84.6 billion20

Qatar hosts the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) at Al Udeid Air Base. It is the largest American military base in the region, making the U.S.-Qatar defense partnership central to the bilateral relationship writ large. Since 2003, Qatar has contributed “more than $8 billion in developing Al Udeid Air Base for use by the United States,” according to the U.S. State Department.21 President Donald Trump announced in May 2025 that Qatar will invest $10 billion in the base “in the coming years.”22

Concurrently, Qatar has spent billions more purchasing American arms through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) and Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) programs. As of January 2025, the U.S. State Department reported that Qatar had over $26 billion in active FMS cases, “making Qatar the second-largest FMS partner in the world.”23 FMS is a program whereby “the U.S. government and a foreign government or international organization enter into a government-to-government agreement,” with the U.S. government acting as an intermediary between American industry and foreign customers.24 FMS transactions typically involve the sale of major weapons systems like guided missiles or advanced fighter jets. According to records from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), the State Department has approved $55.9 billion in FMS packages for Qatar since 2011.25 Last year, the State Department approved the sale of eight MQ-9B Remotely Piloted Aircraft to Qatar under the FMS program. Qatar is the first country in the region approved to purchase these advanced drones.26 Most recently, the State Department announced on May 1 “the immediate sale” of $4 billion worth of “PATRIOT Air and Missile Defense replenishment services and related equipment” to Qatar. In its press release, the State Department noted that “an emergency exists” that warrants “waiving the Congressional review requirements” associated with FMS cases.27

Records from the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls show that American companies have shipped $1.2 billion worth of arms to Qatar since 2014 through the DCS program.28 DCS involves the “sale of defense articles or defense services made under a Department of State issued license by U.S. industry directly to a foreign buyer,”  and generally involve less-sensitive weapons.29 The dollar value is reported in section 655 of the “Annual Report to Congress on Direct Commercial Sales Authorizations to Foreign Countries and International Organizations.” The congressionally mandated report lists the value of authorized “defense articles and services” alongside the “shipped value,” which represents “the actual shipments of those licensed transactions.” A conservative figure of $1.2 billion includes just the value of “landed” sales, meaning those that were actually shipped to Qatar.

South Carolina has emerged as a hub for Qatari defense initiatives. In 2018, Barzan Holdings, “the strategic investment arm of Qatar’s Ministry of Defense,” incorporated a subsidiary in Charleston, South Carolina, called Barzan Aeronautical (now SC Aeronautical).30 Barzan Aeronautical announced plans in 2021 to spend $14.7 million on a facility for “engineering and manufacturing of technology-based unmanned aircrafts” in Johns Island, South Carolina.31 Qatar also funds other defense companies through Barzan Holdings and Barzan Aeronautical.32

Energy

$24.6 billion

Energy is a major area of investment for the Qatari government. Texas, as the United States’s leading energy producer, is the primary destination for Qatari investments. The localized nature of these energy deals raises questions as to whether Qatar is accruing political influence in Texas, even if its ventures also have commercial merit. The same question could be asked of Qatar’s investments in South Carolina.

In 2019, then-U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry and Qatar’s minister of state of energy affairs announced a $10 billion investment in the Golden Pass liquified natural gas (LNG) terminal in Sabine Pass, Texas. Qatar Petroleum, now QatarEnergy, invested “more than $8 billion” in the LNG terminal, with ExxonMobil picking up the rest of the tab.33 Three years later, QatarEnergy and Chevron Phillips jointly established the Golden Triangle Polymers Company in Orange, Texas. Qatar owns 49 percent of the $8.5 billion petrochemical facility project, representing a $4.2 billion investment.34 Additionally, the White House noted in May 2025 that Texas-based American energy giant McDermott “has a strong partnership with Qatar Energy” that includes “seven active projects worth $8.5 billion.”35

Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund, the Qatar Investment Authority (QIA), also drives investment in the energy sector. In 2019, an affiliate of QIA sunk approximately $550 million into Oryx Midstream Services, a “privately-held midstream crude operator” based in Texas.36

In 2021, QIA invested $740 million in AVANGRID, a company that generates power for over 3 million Americans.37 Moreover, filings at the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) in June 2025 show that QIA holds 18.6 million shares, or 5.5 percent, of Vistra Corp, an electricity and power-generation company in Irving, Texas. Based on the 52-week low share price at the time of writing, QIA’s stake in Vistra Corp is worth approximately $2.2 billion.38 In March 2026, a consortium including QIA agreed to acquire AES, a clean energy provider based in Arlington, Virginia, for $10.7 billion. Qatar’s exact contribution is not reported.39

American energy giant ConocoPhillips runs a Global Water Sustainability Center in Qatar. The center has received multiple grants from the Qatar National Research Fund, including a $700,000 grant in 2013 for a study on natural gas production methods.40

Aviation and Infrastructure

$246 billion

Qatar has committed significant capital to infrastructure beyond the energy sector. Aviation is a major target. Qatar has initiated a reported $148.5 billion worth of Boeing orders since 2011 and signed a $79 million deal in 2018 with Tapestry Solutions, a subsidiary of Boeing that specializes in logistics services and software.41

Additionally, Doha has hired American companies to manage projects in Qatar. In 2021, the Qatar Public Works Authority awarded U.S. engineering firm Parsons Corporation a four-year, $114 million contract to improve Qatari roads and other infrastructure. The White House announced in May 2025 that Parsons had “successfully won 30 projects worth up to $97 billion dollars.”42 In the United States, QIA participated in a 2024 fundraising round for Transportation Equipment Network, which is “the largest full-service trailer lessor in the United States.”43

Education

Higher Education

$8.9 billion

The U.S. Department of Education launched a foreign funding dashboard in January 2026 showing that Qatar has pumped $8.8 billion into the U.S. higher education system since 2001. That sum positions Qatar as the largest foreign funder of U.S. higher education, surpassing China by approximately $2 billion.44

Section 117 of The Higher Education Act requires schools to disclose gifts and contracts from foreign sources that exceed $250,000. The schools that receive the most funding from Qatar are those with satellite campuses in Doha: Cornell University, Carnegie Mellon University, Texas A&M University, Georgetown University, Northwestern University, and Virginia Commonwealth University. Texas A&M announced in 2024 that it will close its Doha campus by 2028.45 In March, the House Education and Workforce Committee released a report explaining that “financial incentives are a motivating factor” for universities to maintain their campuses in Qatar, and that the incentives often benefit their home campuses. Northwestern, for example, “annually transfers part of its management fee” from Qatar to its communication and journalism schools in Evanston, Illinois. Northwestern and Georgetown are also “contractually required to abide by the ‘applicable laws and regulations of the State of Qatar,’” which has allowed schools to “perpetuate antisemitism without apparent consequence” and left them “struggling to uphold free speech principles.”46

The funds disclosed to the Department of Education are only part of the story. Researchers at universities across the country receive funds from Qatari sources that they are not required to disclose. Qatar has funded projects at Northwestern University, Rutgers University, Stanford University, the University of Michigan, and the University of Washington to the tune of more than $6 million.47 This is not an exhaustive account of Qatari-funded research projects.

K-12

$8.5 million

There is no equivalent reporting requirement for K-12 schools. Public records from a range of school districts in major cities across the country document over $8 million in support from Qatar Foundation International (QFI) since 2010. QFI is the American arm of the Qatar Foundation, which is run by the Qatari royal family. QFI primarily funds teacher trainings, Arabic language and culture programs, and student trips to Doha.48

The $8 million figure here is likely an undercount because it reflects spending only in selected districts. Moreover, The Wall Street Journal reported that QFI gave $30.6 million to dozens of schools between 2009 and 2017.49

Youth Programs

$3.6 million

In addition to direct funding for schools, Qatar has disbursed grants to a range of youth programs, including Boys & Girls Clubs; Learning Undefeated, which brings STEM education to underserved communities; and Break the Barriers, which provides extracurricular programming for students of all ages and abilities.50

Lobbying and Public Relations

$295.9 million

In 2017, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, and Egypt severed ties with Qatar citing a range of grievances, including its purported support for “terrorist organizations” and Al Jazeera’s incitement of extremism.51 Qatar recruited an army of lobbyists to generate support in Washington. States like Saudi Arabia already had deep benches of K Street firms on their payrolls, and the Qataris, according to former U.S. Ambassador to Qatar Patrick Theros, started “playing catch-up ball.”52

All firms engaging in “political activities” or public relations on behalf of Qatar must register with the Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and periodically disclose funds they receive from, and activities they conduct on behalf of, Doha.53 Funding information is typically found on two types of documents — Exhibit B, which asks for the written agent’s contract with Qatar, and supplemental statements, which are filed every six months to report money received. Only the money listed in the supplemental statements is counted in this study because those numbers represent monies received, not monies promised.

Since 2010, at least 69 firms have received approximately $235 million from Qatar. In certain cases, registered agents receive funds from intermediaries on behalf of Qatar, with both the agent and the intermediary filing FARA disclosures. The figures in this memo reflect the total amount each agent reported it received directly from Qatari principals. Agents who disclosed payments only from intermediaries are excluded from this dataset.

Barzan Aeronautical is the largest recipient of Qatari funds. The company received $95.3 million from Barzan Holdings between 2018 and 2025 to “aid in the procurement/development of airborne ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] systems for the foreign principal.”54 Barzan Aeronautical hired a DC-based law firm to “provide legal counsel, and as required government relations counsel, on commercial and export control matters.”55 The law firm reported $28 million through the FARA process between 2018 and 2023. Qatari entities also paid multimillion-dollar sums to Portland PR; Nelson, Mullins, Riley and Scarborough; and Finn Partners.

Registered Qatari agents have engaged in a variety of activities, including promoting Qatar’s relationship with the United States, engaging congressional offices on legislation, and pushing back against accusations of labor abuses.56

Government

$8.9 million

Qatar courts U.S. officials in ways that do not require registration under FARA. This occurs at the federal, state, and local levels. In 2020, for example, Qatar donated $5 million to the Mayor’s Fund of Los Angeles to help expand the city’s Angeleno Card program, which provided prepaid debit cards to LA residents impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. Local news reported that Qatar’s gift was “the largest-ever single donation to the fund.”57 Qatar reportedly donated an additional $25,000 to the Mayor’s Fund “to sponsor four blood drives for necessary procedures during the pandemic.”58

In 2025, local news outlets discovered that Qatar had paid $61,930 for Washington, DC, Mayor Muriel Bowser and four of her staffers to travel to the Middle East in 2023. Qatar’s funding was legal, but the overseas trip made headlines because the mayor’s office allegedly claimed that the funding came from the DC Chamber of Commerce.59

Bowser is just one of many American officials who have travelled abroad on Doha’s dime. These trips are often publicly reported in local papers, but the costs of the trips are not. For example, New York City Police Commissioner Edward Caban made two trips to Qatar in 2023, one covered by Qatar’s Ministry of Interior and the other by the Qatari Embassy. The New York Post obtained disclosures that it said, “estimate the cost between $1,000 and $4,999 for travel, accommodations and meals but do not contain any more specifics on the trips.”60

Doha has likewise paid for the mayors of Kansas City (MO), Tucson (AZ), Fresno (CA), Atlanta (GA), Montgomery (AL), Columbia (SC), and Rochester Hills (MI) to travel to Qatar.61 The price tag of their trips is not reported. Mayors from Dallas-Fort Worth (TX), Tampa (FL), Miami (FL), Quincy (IL), Mountain Home (ID), and New Orleans (LA) have also visited Qatar in the last five years. Reports do not specify who funded their junkets.62

The same goes for members of Congress. Representatives Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Andre Carson (D-IN), Claudia Tenney (R-NY), Darin LaHood (R-IL), and Bryan Steil (R-WI), are among the members who traveled to Doha on Qatar’s dime. The disclosures do not list costs.63

Qatar also frequently presents gifts to U.S. officials. This is standard for some foreign governments, but federal employees must disclose gifts that exceed a minimal value. Reports from the State Department’s Office of the Chief of Protocol note over $1.3 million in gifts from Qatari officials. The largest gift is a “gold-plated mechanical bird” worth $110,000 that President Barack Obama received from Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani in May 2015. First Lady Michelle Obama received the same gift in November 2015.64

Think Tanks

$22.6 million

Think tanks that have received funds from Qatar include the Brookings Institution, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Middle East Institute, the Stimson Center, and the Wilson Center. The Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Texas also received grants from Qatar, including $2.5 million to establish The State of Qatar Endowment for International Stem Cell Policy Research.65 Think tanks are generally not required to publicly disclose their donors or the amounts given, but some disclose this information voluntarily. Think tanks have acknowledged over $20 million of funding from Qatar. Several additional ones name Qatari entities as donors in their annual reports, but do not share the amount. More disclosure is needed.

Real Estate

$8.9 billion

In October 2025, Qatar hosted a soiree to celebrate the opening of its new embassy building in Washington, DC.66 The embassy is located at the former Carnegie Institution of Washington administrative building, which was designated as a National Historical Landmark in 1965.67 Property records show that the building was sold for $65 million in 2021.68

Qatar has amassed an extensive U.S. real estate portfolio through government organs, the royal family, and investment firms run by Qatari royals. Qatar’s properties are scattered across the United States and include some of the most recognizable properties in America: The Plaza Hotel in New York ($600 million), the St. Regis New York ($310 million), and the St. Regis San Francisco ($175 million).69 Qatar even owns a piece of the Empire State Building through a $622 million equity investment in Empire State Realty Trust.70

In 2023, Qatar purchased the Park Lane Hotel in New York for $623 million, ending a yearslong ordeal that saw the U.S. Justice Department seize the Park Lane while investigating one of the hotel’s financiers, Low Taek Jho, for fraud and money laundering.71 Qatar acquired the Park Lane from presidential envoy Steven Witkoff.72 Qatar also owns several condos across New York City, including multiple units in Trump World Tower at 845 UN Plaza.73

In Washington, DC, Qatar’s real estate portfolio encompasses much more than its embassy. In 2010, Qatar sunk $650 million into CityCenterDC, becoming the majority owner of the 10-acre development in downtown Washington featuring residential buildings, office spaces, restaurants, and luxury shops.74 Alduwaliya Asset Management, which is directed by members of Qatar’s ruling Al-Thani family, has scooped up several properties across the capital, including a Hilton Homewood Suites near the Washington DC Convention Center and a historic 19th century townhouse known as the Demonet Building.75 Alduwaliya has purchased hundreds of millions of dollars of real estate in New York City and Boston, as well.76

Disaster Relief

$76.2 million

Qatar has stepped in more than once to provide relief to American communities recovering from natural disasters. After Hurricane Katrina ravaged Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama in 2005, Qatar established a $100 million Qatar Katrina Fund to support impacted communities.77 The headline figure is less than $100 million because it reflects only those grants categorized as disaster relief. Some Katrina Fund disbursements funded scholarships and other programs cataloged in separate categories. Recipients of Qatar Katrina Fund grants included Habitat for Humanity ($22 million), March of Dimes ($3 million), and the Treme/Lafitte Renewal project ($2.5 million).78

Qatar established a similar fund after Hurricane Harvey ripped through Texas in 2017. The $30 million Qatar Harvey Fund disbursed grants to a range of organizations, including Habitat for Humanity, a Houston community center, and a local church.79 The Qatar Harvey Fund also granted $6 million to the Bob Woodruff Foundation to “support organizations providing services to the more than 400,000 post-9/11 veterans and their families in the southeast Texas areas impacted by Hurricane Harvey.”80 Qatar granted the Bob Woodruff Foundation another $5 million in 2023 “to support veterans in Florida in their recovery from recent natural disasters,” including Hurricane Ian.81

Medicine

$517.8 million

Through its post-Katrina and post-Harvey funds, Qatar has disbursed grants to hospitals in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.82 Additionally, Doha has invested in a range of biotechnology companies, including: Sionna Therapeutics, which is developing treatments for cystic fibrosis; BioXCel Therapeutics, which is leveraging artificial intelligence to develop treatments for brain and nervous system disorders; PepGen Inc., which is developing therapies for neuromuscular and neurological diseases; and Perspective Therapeutics, a radiopharmaceutical company developing novel cancer treatments. Based on the 52-week-low share price at the time of writing, Qatar’s shares in each company are worth approximately $24.2 million, $2.8 million, $1.3 million, and $13.9 million respectively.83 Qatar also invested $2.1 million in Argus Cognitive, a New Hampshire-based company using artificial intelligence to help diagnose and treat autism.84

Additionally, there are a half-dozen biotechnology companies in which Qatar made early, seed-stage investments. No dollar amount is publicly available. The companies include:

  • Outpace Bio — QIA participated in a $144 million financing round in 2024.85
  • Latigo Biotherapeutics — QIA participated in a $150 million financing round in 2025.86
  • Supira Medical — QIA participated in a $120 million financing round in 2025.87
  • Arbor Biotechnologies — QIA participated in a $73.9 million financing round in 2025.88
  • Neuralink — QIA participated in a $650 million financing round in 2025.89
  • Star Therapeutics — QIA participated in a $90 million financing round in 2023.90
  • Ensoma — QIA participated in a $53 million financing round in 2025.91
  • OncoResponse — QIA participated in a $40 million financing round in 2018.92

Sports

$207.4 million

In 2022, Qatar became the first Mideast nation to host the FIFA World Cup, a privilege secured with bribes, which two British journalists detailed meticulously.93 Three weeks before the vote, for example, Qatar allegedly offered FIFA a $400 million television contract that “included an unprecedented success fee of $100m” to be deposited in a FIFA account “only if” Qatar’s bid was successful.94 This was just the tip of the iceberg. Nevertheless, Qatar’s foray into sport continues to deepen.

In 2023, QIA purchased approximately 5 percent of Monumental Sports & Entertainment, the parent company of the Washington Wizards (NBA), Washington Capitals (NHL), and Washington Mystics (WNBA). The deal was worth just over $4 billion, making Qatar’s 5 percent amount to $202.5 million. Qatar increased its stake in December 2025 for an undisclosed amount.95

In 2018, Qatar paid $100,000 to keep the DC Metro open an hour after closing so fans could catch a late-night ride home after the Capitals’s Stanley Cup playoff game against the Tampa Bay Lightning.96 Months later, Qatar Airways announced a partnership agreement with the Brooklyn Nets and Barclays Center. The value of the sponsorship deal was not reported.97

Qatar has also directed money to community sports programs. In 2021, Qatar donated $150,000 to Celebrity Sweat Cares, a nonprofit organization that provides children with access to sports and fitness gear. Qatar’s embassy announced the donation alongside a $40,000 gift to the Orange County Soccer Club (OCSC) Community Foundation to “provide soccer balls and prizes for students who complete the OCSC Virtual Soccer curriculum.”98 Materials submitted to the Department of Justice pursuant to FARA show that the Qatari embassy sponsored “Military Appreciation Night” at an OCSC home game in July 2021.99

A $3.3 million from the Qatar Harvey Fund also helped construct eight soccer fields intended to double as flood mitigation basins.100 Most recently, the Embassy of Qatar gave $1 million to the Wounded Warrior Project “to provide adaptive sports opportunities” to veterans in Florida.101

In 2025, Qatar’s Government Communications Office signed a five-year strategic partnership agreement with online sports platform Fanatics. As part of the arrangement, Qatar sponsored a three-day sports festival in New York City. The value of the sponsorship is not public.102

Media

$1 billion

A clip of former Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim Al-Thani resurfaced in November 2025 in which he boasts that Doha “had journalists on our payroll in many countries.”103 This would not be surprising, given Qatar’s creation and control of the Al Jazeera Media Network, which asserts its independence but serves as the emirate’s global media arm, promoting Islamist and anti-Western content.104 But Al Jazeera and its affiliates are only part of the Qatari media empire. Indeed, from broadcast media to movie studios, Qatar has sunk significant capital into the American mediascape.

Qatari royal Sheikh Sultan bin Jassim Al-Thani reportedly invested $50 million in Newsmax between 2019 and 2020 through his London-based investment firm, Heritage Advisors.105 Documents submitted to the SEC in March 2025 show that Sheikh Sultan holds 19,737,553 shares, or 22.2 percent, of Newsmax. Based on the 52-week-low price at the time of writing, those shares are worth approximately $100.9 million.106

In 2023, QIA invested $150 million in the North Road Company, the production studio behind hits like “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes,” “New Girl,” and “Love Is Blind.107 French media conglomerate Mediawan acquired North Road in January 2026 but QIA will reportedly maintain a minority share.108

Qatar also owns Miramax films through its state-owned beIN Media Group. In 2016, beIN purchased Miramax for an undisclosed amount. However, reports suggested that the sellers — which included QIA and U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack’s Colony Capital — asked for as much as $1 billion. According to The New York Times, beIN sold 49 percent of Miramax to ViacomCBS in 2020 but remained the majority owner. ViacomCBS reportedly invested $375 million for its 49 percent stake, indicating that Qatar’s shares were worth approximately $390 million at the time of sale.109

Qatar is also part of Paramount’s ongoing bid to takeover Warner Bros Discovery.110 SEC documents show that the Qatari, Saudi, and Emirati sovereign wealth funds offered “an aggregate $24 billion commitment.”111 Qatar will reportedly own 10.6 percent of the company once the merger is complete.112

Social media is another area of investment. Qatar backed Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter to the tune of $375 million and has signed partnership agreements with TikTok, Snap Inc., and podcasting giant iHeartMedia.113 The monetary values of the agreements are not public.

As Qatar partners with social media platforms, it is also investing in their users. In November 2025, Qatar paid for a group of Republican influencers to visit Doha during the Formula One Grand Prix. The price tag of their trips is not reported.114

Technology

$156.5 million

Leveraging data from the SEC and business intelligence platform Crunchbase, it is clear that technology companies have raised funds from Qatari sources. In many cases, Qatar is listed as one of several investors who participated in a single financing round. The size of the funding rounds are public, but the amounts Qatar contributed are not specified.

One of Qatar’s major tech investments is in QuantumScape, a Silicon Valley firm that is developing rechargeable batteries for electric cars. Reuters reported in 2021 that Qatar owned approximately 4.7 percent of the company which, at the time, was worth a reported $446 million. Based on the 52-week-low share price at the time of this writing, Qatar’s 14.3 million shares are worth approximately $54.4 million.115

Other technology companies that have raised money from Qatari sources include:

  • xAI — QIA participated in a $6 billion financing round in 2024 and a $20 billion round in 2026.116
  • Uber — QIA participated in a $1.2 billion financing round in 2014. Bloomberg reported in 2018 that Qatar had invested $100 million.117
  • Axiom Space — QIA co-led a $350 million fundraising round in 2026.118
  • Vast — QIA participated in a $500 million fundraising round in 2026.119
  • Gigamon — QIA jointly acquired the cybersecurity company in 2017. The valuation was approximately $1.6 billion.120
  • Instabase — QIA participated in a $100 million financing round in 2025.121
  • Cresta — QIA co-led a $125 million financing round in 2024.122
  • Databricks — QIA participated in a $10 billion financing round in 2025.123
  • Applied Intuition — QIA participated in a $600 million financing round in 2025.124
  • Mesosphere — QIA participated in a $125 million fundraising round in 2018.125
  • SoFi — QIA led a fundraising round in 2019 that raised over $500 million.126
  • GamerBoom — MBK Holding, an investment firm chaired by Qatari royal Mansoor Bin Khalifa Al-Thani, participated in a $9 million venture round in 2025.127
  • d-Matrix — QIA participated in a $275 million financing round in 2025.128

Financial Sector

$26.8 billion

Affinity Partners, the investment firm of Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, has benefited from Qatari support. The New York Times reported in 2023 that the UAE had invested “more than $200 million” in Affinity, and that “a Qatari entity invested a similar sum.”129 In May 2025, Kushner said that QIA and an Emirati firm invested an additional $1.5 billion in Affinity.130 He did not specify how much of that sum came from Qatar and thus no additional cash was added to the total in this memo.131 Former Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin’s Liberty Strategic Capital also reportedly received a $500 million commitment from Qatar.132 Most recently, QIA signed a $25 billion memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Goldman Sachs.

Additionally, filings submitted to the SEC show that QIA holds stock in Apollo Commercial Real Estate Finance, Sixth Street Specialty Lending, Global Business Travel Group, and Blackstone Secured Lending Fund.133 IlWaddi Holdings, which is run by Qatari royal Sheikh Jassim Abdulaziz Al-Thani, likewise holds stock in AlTi Global.134

Venture capital appears to be a growing priority for Qatar. In February 2024, Doha launched a $1 billion “Fund of Funds” program to “create a vibrant venture capital and start-up ecosystem” in Qatar “by providing financial resources and support services” to fund managers abroad.135 Qatar expanded the program by $2 billion in February 2026. To date, over a half-dozen U.S. companies have received undisclosed sums through the program, including Greycroft, Liberty City Ventures, Ion Pacific, B Capital, Deerfield Management, Human Capital, Builders VC, and Founders Circle Capital.136

Culture and Americana

$26.2 million

American history appears to be a particular area of philanthropic interest. Qatar made a $20 million donation to the Richard Nixon Foundation in 2023 “to build a new hall at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum designed to house large-scale, rotating and traveling education exhibitions and programs.”137 The same year, Qatar pledged $5 million to the National Medal of Honor Museum in Arlington, Texas.138 Lifetime donations from the Qatar Fund for Development to the Carter Center, a nonprofit organization founded by former President Jimmy Carter, exceed $1 million.139

Meanwhile, the Embassy of Qatar appeared on the International Spy Museum’s list of donors in 2020, 2021, 2023, and 2024.140 Qatar likewise signed an MOU with the Smithsonian Institute in 2020 and donated an undisclosed amount to The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City in 2022.141

Conclusion

The United States should welcome foreign investment. But America isn’t a charity, nor is it for sale. Washington should not allow foreign governments to purchase influence unchecked and without proper transparency. Policymakers must start asking when foreign investment becomes a deliberate tool of foreign influence, and what risks come with investments from a country like Qatar, which has a documented history of funding terrorist groups including Hamas, the Taliban, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

One month after returning to office, Trump issued the “America First Investment Policy,” a memo declaring his administration’s intention to “make the United States the world’s greatest destination for investment dollars, to the benefit of all of us.” But Trump’s memorandum rightly noted that “investment at all costs is not always in the national interest.”142 Qatar may have persuaded successive presidents that it deserves to be a Major Non-NATO Ally, but the Persian Gulf emirate often conducts itself in ways unworthy of the name. The U.S. government has yet to soberly assess Qatari partnerships and investments despite wanting to ensure that “foreign investors avoid partnering with United States foreign adversaries.” The $400 billion of wealth Qatar has directed into the United States warrants much greater scrutiny.

Incitement, genocide, genocidal terror, and the upstream role of indoctrination: can epidemiologic models predict and prevent?

Abstract

We apply the models and tools of epidemiology and public health to propose a unified field theory showing the role of ideologies, indoctrination, and incitement, in genocide, genocidal terror, and terror by groups or individuals. We examine the effects of indoctrination and incitement as exposures and risks in relation to genocide and genocidal terror. Incitement has been recognized as a trigger to these outcomes but indoctrination is upstream to incitement. Population-wide exposure to indoctrination increases susceptibility to the effects of incitement. These relationships have been seen in all major genocides and genocidal terror in the late twentieth and twenty-first centuries. There is some insight into the relationship between ideology, incitement, and genocidal acts of violence from the so-called localized genocides in Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur, Syria, and most recently, among the Rohingya in Myanmar. There is a need to recognize the upstream role of ideologies of hate in order to determine the degree to which indoctrination posed, and continues to pose, a contributing factor. Epidemiologic models, such as the iceberg model of exposure and disease and the concept of “sick individuals” and “sick populations,” guide our understanding of the content and spread of indoctrination and incitement and can provide essential insights for prevention. The hateful indoctrination and ideologies behind genocidal violence must be countered and replaced by positive ideologies and role models that emphasize respect for life and human dignity for all.

Read PDF

 

No go zones

Who would have thought that a mere eight decades after the Shoah, Jews would once again be facing dangerous threats to their safety?

Openly speaking Ivrit and wearing kippot, a Magen David and clothing identifying the wearer as Jewish is attracting verbal and physical violence in a growing number of countries.

In some cities, whole areas are “no go” areas for Jews as well as law enforcement authorities.

Not so long ago, Jews in Europe and Islamic countries were confined to ghettos. They were either forbidden to venture out of those places or did so at great risk to their lives.

The so-called enlightenment in Europe released Jewish communities from these restrictions, although Jews living in Russia and its territories continued to be the recipients of forced displacement and territorial confinement.

The Nazi and fascist era reintroduced traditional Jew hate segregation with all its horrendous consequences.

It is obvious that the seeds of hate never died after the Shoah, and they have now germinated anew, not only in Europe but also in all parts of the globe.

One of the most amazing aspects of Jew hate is that it even flourishes in places where there are no Jews or where their presence is so minuscule that one would never know they existed.

Thus, in Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as Jew free zones in Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Saudi Arabia, among others, the virus of Jew demonisation is alive and well.

In countries where Islamic Jihadist ideology has not yet become the norm, the daily and weekly demonstrations and demonisation of Zionists have resulted in Israelis and Jews being potential targets.

Years before the Bondi massacre, when I visited Australia, I was warned not to wear a kippah in public. I am sure that this advice was well-intentioned and meant to safeguard me from any potential problems, but it proved to be a foretaste of what would eventually eventuate.

Weekly demonstrations against Israel and Zionists in numerous cities provide perfect opportunities for all the usual groups to vent their prejudices. In many cases, entire sections of the central business district are taken over by these gatherings, making the presence of any identifiable Jews dangerous. On Shabbat, Jews walking to synagogue can find themselves being targeted by inciters and haters in some places of worship, which have become no-go zones.

Students attending Jewish schools are now being advised to either take off their school uniform, which might display Jewish symbols, or cover them up. Pupils have been targeted on public transport which is why the vast majority of children are ferried to and from their schools by parents.

Israeli and Kosher restaurants and takeaway establishments have become easy targets for demonstrators, vandals and anyone wanting to make a point against Israel.

In the USA and elsewhere, meetings which promote Aliyah and the purchase of homes in Israel attract disruptive, violent mobs.

Communal gatherings do not advertise where they are to be held, and pre-registration for security purposes has become mandatory. Israel film festivals have been cancelled because venues suddenly become unavailable. The British Museum recently scrubbed a lecture on ancient Judea due to threats of protest and potential violence.

Synagogues and communal buildings have become fortresses as the threats from various quarters increase.

Graffiti is a modern-day plague, and its poisonous messages against Jews, Israel and Zionists can be found in almost every country.

An inevitable byproduct is a growing sense of unease, which in turn results in steps to hide one’s Jewish identity. Removing mezuzot from exterior doors is just one way to conceal one’s identity. The next step is withdrawal from participating in communal functions and, in some cases, adopting a virtual Marrano-like lifestyle whereby outwardly there is no Jewish connection. Identifying as Jewish secretly in the safety of your home might help to calm nerves, but it certainly will not safeguard you in the long term.

History has proven on more than one occasion that no matter how hard one tries to conceal one’s Jewish identity, inevitably those who hate Jews will discover it.

Another “no go” territory is growing political correctness. This takes the form of a total prohibition on articulating inconvenient facts and “outing” those who are guilty of Jew baiting and incitement.

The mantra of “social cohesion” has become an alternative “cop out” for all who do not want to act against and expose those who foment hate. This malaise has now mutated into lumping terror groups, rogue regimes and known patrons of terror together with Israel’s democratically elected representatives. Deploring extreme rhetoric and behaviour by Israeli politicians or individuals is perfectly legitimate. Comparing them with terrorists dedicated to the murder of Jews is something altogether again.

Attempts to ban Israel from international forums, conferences or sporting tournaments is yet another form of establishing “no go” areas where an Israel presence is deemed a threat to world peace.

Israeli and Jewish tourists are finding that in an increasing number of countries, identifying as a Zionist or supporter of the Jewish homeland results in the possibility of being ostracised. Hotels, spas and other venues have cancelled bookings because the guests admit to being either from Israel or a supporter of Zionism.

It is becoming obvious that an increasing number of destinations, openly or covertly, are establishing “Jew free” zones.

There is now a website that one can consult before booking a vacation entitled “Safe destinations for Jews.”

It lists countries by categories: Safe – Caution – Warning – Dangerous – and explains each criterion.

SAFE: Isolated nature of antisemitic incidents and an absence of broader patterns. There is a low level of risk for Israeli and Jewish travellers.

There are currently 63 countries in this category, including Pacific Island nations, which consistently vote against anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations.

CAUTION: Recent reports and events indicate a concerning rise in antisemitic incidents. Given the severity of these incidents the Israeli Government has issued a travel advisory urging Israeli travelers to exercise caution and remain vigilant.

There are currently 68 countries in this category, including Australia and New Zealand.

WARNING: Recent events have raised concerns for Jewish and Israeli travellers. Exercise caution and stay informed about local developments.

There are currently 15 countries in this category, including the UK, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain.

DANGEROUS: There are significant concerns for Jewish and Israeli travellers. In view of a dangerous environment, Jewish and Israeli travellers are advised not to travel to these countries.

 There are currently 24 in this category. These include Pakistan, Turkey and Malaysia, as well as Iran, Yemen and other jihadist-sponsoring countries.

Israelis also have their own “no go” zones. These are areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority, which envisages a future state completely free of any Jewish presence. This attracts no criticism or condemnation from those who promote the PA as “peace partners.”

Quite often, Diaspora Jews downplay Jew hatred in their countries.

When asked whether they feel safe walking in their city while wearing a kippah or other identifying Jewish symbol, the answer is always either no or an embarrassed silence.

At least in the Jewish homeland, there is no need to cover up and hide.

Israeli deputy FM: UNRWA is a terrorist organization

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) says it is operating in Judea and Samaria (which it calls the West Bank) assisting 33,000 displaced Palestinian refugees.

UNRWA attributes the mass displacement of Palestinians primarily to what it terms ongoing Israel Defense Forces military operations, heavy bombardment, forced evacuation orders and “settler violence.”

Israel has often disputed the methodology and attribution behind U.N.-reported statistics.

In an email exchange with JNS, UNRWA’s media department says it has set up 12 temporary clinics to ensure continued access to healthcare and is distributing supplies and shelters to displaced families.

Furthermore, UNRWA says it has been working to ensure that the education of Palestinian children is not further disrupted, including by running remote learning programs.

However, some leading Israeli officials and experts on UNRWA question the legitimacy of the group’s activities.

Dr. Einat Wilf, who has written extensively on UNRWA’s perpetuation of the permanent “refugee problem,” told JNS there is zero reason for UNRWA to be operating in Judea and Samaria under the Palestinian Authority.

Wilf, who is the founder of the Oz Party, which is running in the upcoming Knesset elections, explained that the result is two parallel systems. On the one hand, she said, there is the P.A., which on paper is supposed to represent a constructive vision of Palestinian self-determination. On the other hand, you have UNRWA, which sustains a vision in which there should be no Jewish state.

She noted that hundreds of thousands of people living in Judea and Samaria, born in places such as Ramallah, are still defined as Palestinian refugees.

“That status is tied to the idea of a ‘right of return,’ which ultimately means erasing Israel. So UNRWA is not just providing services, it is maintaining that framework,” she argued.

She said UNRWA should not be in charge of schooling if that education is indoctrination. “It doesn’t matter that they provide services—the real question is what they are educating people for,” she said.

Wilf added that UNRWA paints a picture of ongoing hardship and need, emphasizing how poor and desperate Palestinians are. But according to this view, that narrative is being used to sustain a broader political struggle rather than resolve it.

“The continued demand for funding is tied to maintaining this framework, one that keeps the conflict ongoing and centered on opposition to the Jewish state, rather than moving toward a different outcome,” she said.

Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Sharren Haskel, who was a co-sponsor of the Oct. 28, 2024, legislation banning UNRWA from operating within pre-1967 Israel (including Jerusalem) and severing all official ties with it, told JNS that UNRWA is not a humanitarian agency, but rather a terrorist organization wearing a humanitarian mask. The law took effect on Jan. 30, 2025.

Haskel called UNRWA’s ongoing operations in Judea and Samaria “destructive and malicious,” proving that it has zero interest in solving the problems of the Palestinians, but rather in perpetuating them.

“For years, it has actively covered up terrorist activities, while shielding and abetting terror. This organization has long outlived its relevance, and its mandate should have expired decades ago,” she said.

Haskel added that every civilized nation should immediately follow suit in banning cooperation with the organization.

Under humanitarian guise

Likud MK Dan Illouz, who co-sponsored the 2024 legislation, told JNS that instead of providing aid, UNRWA’s true mission has always been to perpetuate the conflict, eternalize refugee status and incite hatred of Israel.

“We have exposed the truth about UNRWA and its deep ties to terror. … The era of Israel tolerating a terror-linked entity inside our borders under a humanitarian guise is officially over,” Illouz said.

David Bedein, director of the Nahum Bedein Center for Near East Policy Research, who has produced video features and films on UNRWA and its school system since 1987, told JNS that, despite assurances from the ambassadors of the European Union that the current P.A./UNRWA curriculum would be vetted by the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), this did not happen.

According to Bedein, P.A. leader Mahmoud Abbas publicly claimed that a delegation had been sent to UNESCO to review the curriculum. Bedein said that UNESCO later confirmed that no such delegation ever arrived.

He notes that UNRWA has not been able to provide donor countries with an accounting for more than $1 billion in donations, other than stating that 58% is allocated to “education.”

After 38 years of monitoring UNRWA, Bedein said: “The pattern is that funds from donor nations effectively disappear from clear accountability.”

On May 28, The Washington Free Beacon reported that a U.S. federal investigation into UNRWA staff will soon encompass at least 1,500 UNRWA-linked individuals suspected of terror ties. The media outlet says the U.S. could soon designate the group as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO).

At the same time, JNS reported last week that more than 90 House members of the U.S. Congress, led by Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), urged President Donald Trump to dismantle UNRWA entirely, citing longstanding allegations tying the agency to Hamas and other terrorist groups.

Liberal Judaism is doomed if it won’t fight anti-Zionism

American Jews are facing an unprecedented crisis in their history. The post-Oct. 7 surge in antisemitism has fundamentally altered the existence of the community in ways that few foresaw in their entirety and that even now many have yet to fully come to terms with. Yet some of the leaders of Reform Judaism—the largest Jewish religious denomination in the country, with which approximately one-third of the community affiliates or identifies—are still pretending that they can continue business as usual.

But fortunately, at least one person of influence within the Reform movement disagrees. And as troubling as the drift away from support for Zionism as a fundamental aspect of Jewish identity may be, the warnings of Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch about the consequences of this destructive trend illustrate that the fight over this among liberal Jews and Reform Judaism isn’t over.

A clarion call to defend Jewish peoplehood

Hirsch’s synagogue, the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue in New York City, a historic institution within Reform Judaism, sponsored a conference this week on “Re-Charging Reform Judaism.”

The speech he delivered should be required listening for everyone who cares about the future of American Jewry, whether or not they are part of the Reform movement. In his address, he issued a clarion call for Reform Jews, as well as American Jewry as a whole, to re-embrace the centrality of Jewish peoplehood and Zionism in their identity and beliefs.

In particular, he called out Reform seminaries for admitting and ordaining avowed opponents of Zionism as rabbis and cantors. That development is not only a potentially fatal blow to the future of his movement, but one that undermines the connection between American Jews and the half of the global Jewish population who currently live in Israel.

As inspiring and timely as his address was, I’m far from sure that his message is resonating as much as it should not only among other Reform rabbis and leaders, but also among their members and the liberal political environment in which they all operate. The problem is not just that some among those who identify with the liberal denominations—Conservative Judaism has the same problem with anti-Zionism among students at its seminaries—are abandoning support for Israel in the face of the tsunami of delegitimization and blood libels being hurled at it by their fellow liberals and progressives.

It’s that they, and even some of their leaders, don’t understand that it is the liberal values they claim to revere and tend to guide their political choices that are under assault from anti-Zionists, who have taken over the educational and journalistic institutions they still look to for guidance.

The fate of Reform

The first thing that needs to be understood is the importance of the debate within the Reform movement and among liberal Jews, and how that relates to prospects for American Jewish life in the 21st century.

There are some within the Orthodox movement, where rates of assimilation and intermarriage are far lower, who adopt an attitude of indifference about what goes on within the liberal denominations. Such people are not merely triumphalist about what they believe is the inevitable dominance of the Orthodox because of shifting demographic trends that favor them. They also tend to write off the importance of the mass of non-Orthodox Jews as essentially irrelevant, not only from a religious point of view but as insignificant in the fight against the antisemitic efforts to isolate and destroy Israel.

And it is equally unfortunate that many in Israel, where the liberal denominations are viewed by most as alien to their experience as Jews and who tend to take little account of American Jewish views as a general practice, mimic this disdain.

They are wrong to do so and not only because the Talmudic principle of Kol Yisrael arevim zeh bazeh—“All Jews are responsible one for another”—dictates that they should care deeply about the potential disintegration of portions of the Jewish community that don’t share all of their beliefs or politics.

A vibrant American Jewish community that is connected to and deeply supportive of Israel is crucial to the battle to defend the Jewish state at a time when it remains under siege. If Israel can only rely on the Orthodox or those who are politically conservative—the segments that are most likely to be supportive—that is a disaster.

According to the most recent accurate surveys, at present, only a bit more than one-tenth of American Jews identify as Orthodox. And only about a third vote for anyone but Democrats. Those numbers are likely to grow in the coming years as the Orthodox share of the population expands, and as increasing numbers of former liberals abandon the left and the Democrats because of their complicity in mainstreaming antisemitism and the demonization of Israel.

But even if we accept the most optimistic assumptions about those changes, the majority of American Jews will likely remain Democratic voters for the foreseeable future. An even larger number will either be affiliated with the liberal denominations or join the fastest-growing sector of American Jewry—the group demographers call “Jews of no religion,” who are unaffiliated and have given up any sense of belonging to the Jewish people.

Suffice it to say that if most of them are lost to the Jewish collective, that’s bad for Israel and the future of a shrinking American Jewish community. It’s also a catastrophe for all Jews when realizing that the number of them today is still far smaller than the number of those alive on the eve of the Holocaust nine decades ago.

Universalism v. particularism

As Hirsch warns, American Jewish movements that eschew support for Zionism and the concept of Jewish peoplehood that is critical for the maintenance of a Jewish community are bound to fail and ultimately collapse.

At the heart of the debate among liberal Jews is the perennial question of what takes precedence within Judaism: universalism or particularism. All Jewish movements acknowledge that both play important roles in the Jewish worldview. Notions of Jewish justice are not restricted to application among Jews; they are about how everyone should be treated. However, Judaism and Jewish identity are nothing without a Jewish people, and the particularist elements of Judaism, including the connection to the land of Israel, are necessary to preserve that people.

Among many progressive Jews, the balance has tipped toward universalism in a way that is oblivious of or even deliberately destructive of Jewish peoplehood and the importance of the Jewish state.

The elevation of the liberal conception of social justice to preeminence among many in Reform or even as the sum total of their ideas of Judaism is deeply problematic. The concept of tikkun olam (“repairing the world”) has become a catch-all phrase that takes it out of context and has become merely a Jewish fig leaf on left-wing political views, regardless of their consequences for the Jews, let alone for society. In the name of this idea of universalism, some Jews don’t just unfairly condemn Israel but embrace a twisted version of Judaism that opposes its existence.

As Hirsch eloquently put it, “We cannot succumb to those who preach a false philosophy of Jewish universalism that camouflages disdain for Jewish particularism under the guise of a sometimes sweeping, self-righteous, sanctimonious and suffocating misunderstanding of tikkun olam.”

Missing the point

Hirsch remains politically liberal and embraces the social-justice agenda rooted in universalist values. But he believes that “a Jewish universalism that is unmoored from Jewish particularism isn’t Jewish.” It’s just a left-wing view of the world. And as we have seen since Oct. 7 and even before that, such a worldview is prepared to tolerate all nationalism and ethno-states (including the sick Palestinian Arab fantasy of an Islamist and Judenrein state that would replace Israel) except the one Jewish state on the planet.

Other Reform rabbis, including the titular leaders of the movement, also say they want to strike a balance between universalism and particularism. Two of them, Rabbi Jonah Pesner, the director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, and Rabbi Josh Weinberg, the president of ARZA, the association of Reform Zionists, wrote what seemed like a response to the conference hosted by Hirsch before its opening. But in their insistence that they should not be asked to choose between their liberal politics and their Jewish loyalties, they are missing the point about the current dilemma faced by their adherents.

No one is asking liberal Jews to give up their positions on abortion or any other progressive shibboleth they adhere to, whether or not they are integral to the defense of Jewish interests or undermine them, as arguably their stands on immigration do.

What we do have a right to expect of those who represent leading Jewish institutions is not to acquiesce in efforts to redefine Jewish life in a way that marginalizes or eliminates core beliefs like those about Israel and Jewish peoplehood, as anti-Zionists are doing. They should be willing to forthrightly condemn those who might be their partisan allies on non-Jewish issues, but who have succumbed to the toxic progressive ideologies that are the foundation of contemporary antisemitism, such as critical race theory, intersectionality and settler-colonialism.

And that is something that all too many liberal Jewish leaders and rabbis have failed to do.

The Mamdani test

A perfect illustration of this in the last year correlates to the election of Zohran Mamdani, an open anti-Zionist whose entire career has revolved around his belief in the elimination of Israel, as mayor of New York City. Hirsch was among the most articulate of those warning Jews that they must wake up to the danger of normalizing someone whose worldview is opposed to the security of half the world’s Jews and how this will impact their lives as well. But all too many Jewish liberals were not willing to stand up and oppose Mamdani.

Indeed, the equivocal stand of Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the head of the Union of Reform Judaism, at the time was typical of the moral cowardice of many on the Jewish left. His neutrality about Mamdani was not merely an appalling abdication of his responsibility to the Jewish people. It reflected a belief on the part of all too many Jewish liberals that their ties to the political left were just as important as those to their fellow Jews, especially the people of Israel.

Faced with the fact that many liberals have been seduced by the pro-Hamas propaganda being mainstreamed by the media outlets to which they look for information, such as The New York Times, Jacobs wouldn’t take sides. He and others like him said that the opinions of those who supported anti-Zionism or were neutral about it were just as valid as those who stood up for the Jewish people.

Instead, he should have asserted, as Hirsch now does, that “anti-Zionism is a monstrous ideology that contravenes every liberal principle we hold dear.”

Zero tolerance for antisemitism, which is, in principle and practice, indistinguishable from anti-Zionism, wouldn’t have forced Jacobs or anyone else to change their views about domestic issues or to become cheerleaders for President Donald Trump, the democratically elected government of Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or the Israeli right. But it should have obligated Jacobs to do better than to say that the pro- and anti-Mamdani stands were morally equivalent.

At stake here is more than a split in the Reform movement.

The war on the West

As Hirsch noted, the reaction from traditional allies on the left, as well as academia and the liberal press to the mass slaughter of Jews on Oct. 7, “revealed the rot inside our most cherished Western institutions.” Indeed, as many conservatives have been saying for years, it’s not just the Jews who are under attack. It is, as Hirsch affirmed, “the entire philosophy of western liberalism that is under assault” from the red-green alliance that seeks Israel’s destruction.

If your response to the monstrous blood libels about “genocide” or “apartheid” being committed by Israel—let alone the indefensible claims by The New York Times about Israelis training dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners—is to seek to find common ground with both sides, then your moral compass, as well as your Jewish sensibilities, are no longer functioning.

In the late 19th century, Reform Judaism adopted the Pittsburgh platform that essentially sought to expunge much of Jewish particularism from Jewish life. By 1938, as the impending catastrophe in Europe loomed on the horizon, they moved away from that stand. Indeed, in that era, the two most important leaders of American Zionism were reform rabbis: Stephen Wise and Abba Hillel Silver. Ultimately, Reform enthusiastically embraced Zionism.

Yet its seminaries, like those of the Conservative movement, have now adopted the same kind of neutrality about anti-Zionism that Jacobs had about a mayor who eggs on mobs that target Jewish citizens and synagogues.

I believe that Hirsch is right when he notes the cost of this to Reform will be as grievous as it is to the Jewish people as a whole. Referencing Reform’s history on Zionism, he was right to issue this warning to his movement:

“If the North American Reform movement in word or deed by action or silence becomes in fact or even by perception, an anti-Zionist or anti-particularist movement that cares only or mostly about universal concerns unanchored in or unmoored from the centrality of Jewish peoplehood, most American Jews will abandon us as they would have in the 20th century had history not forced us to come to our senses.”

The good news is that it is still possible for Jews to reach across denominational or partisan lines to work together. As Hirsch points out, the rabbis who were prepared to stand up against Mamdani found they had more in common with those who shared that stand from other movements than they did with those with similar backgrounds who were neutral or supportive of an open anti-Zionist.

That’s the example that other liberal Jews must take to heart if they are to adequately respond to the current crisis. The Palestinian Arab murderers, rapists and kidnappers of Oct. 7 didn’t care about the political opinions of their Israeli victims. Liberals who think this has nothing to do with them are blind to the threats facing every Jew today, including them.

Those who think staying in sync with their allies on the left is more important than fighting antisemitism are harming their own futures as much as they are encouraging those who seek the genocide of the Jews of Israel. Hirsch’s fierce commitment to Jewish peoplehood should make him a hero to all Jews, regardless of whether they agree with him on how to practice Judaism or politics in America. If more liberals don’t heed his warnings, the cost of their abandonment of principle and their people will be felt by everyone in the Jewish world.

Chumps

WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 8: The exterior of the White House is seen before U.S. Vice President Mike Pence speaks during an Infrastructure Summit Working Luncheon June 8, 2017 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Eric Thayer/Getty Images)

Listening to the rhetoric emanating from the White House, the media, and sundry foreign ministries, one cannot help but feel that something rotten is being cooked up.

The definition of a “chump” is someone who is a sucker, gullible or easily deceived.

Unfortunately, this more than adequately sums up the prevailing scenario as far as deals with Iran are concerned.

One of the main problems with politically negotiated deals is the fine details and secret protocols that never see the light of day. Too often, deals touted as “fantastic” and”historical” contain secret clauses that, when inevitably revealed, prove disastrous.

When one of the protagonists, usually the one who brags the most, asserts that he alone knows how to make a deal, one should be wary of the outcome.

Currently, we are on tenterhooks as every day brings hourly updates on a supposed deal being hammered out between Iran and the United States.

Trump, who believes that he is no chump, blows hot and cold, alternating threats of dire consequences with expressions of euphoric expectations. Claiming that he never makes “bad deals” and that “Bibi will do whatever I tell him”, the situation lurches from the sublime to the ridiculous.

In the midst of this entire frenetic verbal onslaught, there are some hard, cold realities that need to be addressed.

The fact that there is a stunning silence from the Israeli political establishment at the moment is a sign that nobody wants to upset things before the inevitable “deal of the millennium” is revealed.

Historical precedents, however, give us several clues as to where we may be heading, and the omens do not look good. Remaining silent in the face of potentially disastrous outcomes is not a recipe for satisfactory results. Anticipating a fantastic future when dealing with those who are consummate liars is an exercise in self-deception.

Unfortunately, history is littered with such fruitless endeavours.

Jews have been more often than not at the receiving end of failed agreements and deals, and it has cost us dearly.

Iran is a rogue regime that oppresses its own citizens, exports terror via proxy groups and is dedicated to the elimination of Israel. To further these aims, it has developed a vast array of ballistic missiles and drones, engaged in clandestine nuclear activity, threatened all those who stand in its way and bullied all those who oppose it.

Iran receives support from the world’s non-democratic axis of evil and is protected from censure and condemnation by the corrupt United Nations. This organisation has been subverted by the very nations whose human rights abuses are on a par with those in Iran.

Proof that the UN is now beyond any sort of redemption is the fact that Iran is elected or appointed to committees dealing with human rights and disarmament.

As an added bonus, a legion of useful idiots in most democracies, from universities, the media, academia and misinformed masses, have been brainwashed to march and demonstrate loyalty to the Islamic Republic. At the same time, they spew vicious incitement against their own country and, of course, Zionists.

Iran has revived piracy as a means to terrorise international shipping, and together with its proxy Houthis in Yemen, now openly flouts freedom of navigation.

It is against this background that Iran, boosted by a hefty dose of jihadist fanatic ideology, sees Trump seeking to negotiate some sort of deal which will not only incentivise increased terror but also guarantee international immunity.

One of the intriguing aspects of the current negotiations is the contradictory reports emanating from American and Iranian sources. Almost on an hourly basis, statements claim “amazing” progress towards some sort of understanding to end hostilities. This is almost immediately followed by counterannouncements by Iranian officials.

One minute, Trump triumphantly proclaims that Iran’s nuclear ambitions will be thwarted. Two minutes later, an Iranian spokesperson flatly denies that the subject of uranium and nuclear possession is even on the agenda.

It is these “ping pong” tactics that, for seasoned observers, should be ringing warning bells. Those touting Trump’s negotiating skills believe that it is all part of some grand and magnificent strategy that will, at the end of the day, produce the deal of the millennium.

More earth-grounded and realistic commentators see an entirely different pattern developing.

The favourite strategy employed by the Iranian Mullah regime is to agree, deny, and envelop the talks in a fog of confusion. Dragging things out for as long as possible has always been a successful strategy. Either the opposite side will, as a result of domestic or international pressure, surrender to long drawn-out and inconclusive bartering, or they will lose patience and go for a quick fix.

Either way, the resultant deal will be full of holes and unenforceable conditions.

The other alternative is to hold out long enough to ensure that the democratic process in your opponent’s country removes him/her and replaces them with someone more amenable to appeasement and deceit.

The Iranian Islamists are master champions when it comes to employing these tactics.

A brief prognosis of what could transpire if this deal is consummated will expose the dangerous, life-threatening repercussions that are sure to detonate.

Freedom of navigation

Who will enforce transit of vessels through the Strait of Hormuz? How will Iran be prevented from extorting tolls and using the funds to pay for terror activities? Does anyone actually believe that the Europeans will enforce unimpeded navigation?

Economic sanctions

Iran’s economy is in free fall. Releasing frozen funds would be a lifeline for the regime and a sign that its opponents’ resolve is weakening. Rewarding deceit and deception is a sure recipe for renewed appeasement. Short of a full-scale ground invasion and saturation bombing, economic strangulation remains the only viable way to enforce complete capitulation and regime change.

Proxies

Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis and other terror groups are sustained and financed by Iran. If their funding is severed, they will rapidly collapse. If a deal enables Iran to continue acting as its patron, uncontrollable instability and terror will reign supreme. Weak appeasers in the EU and elsewhere will find that terror erupting in their countries will be sponsored by these groups.

Missiles and Drones

Within a very short space of time after the signing of any deal, full-scale production of missiles and drones will be underway. The ability to reach Europe, the UK and the USA is already achievable, and Iran will be poised to threaten not just the Gulf States and Israel but also countries further afield.

Nuclear ambitions

Iran has years of experience at subterfuge and evading international scrutiny. They have amassed a large quantity of enriched uranium and have secret underground sites still to be discovered. The much vaunted American bombing of facilities has, despite Trump’s bombastic claims, failed to destroy them. Failure to seize the buried uranium and permanently disable the covert nuclear material will be catastrophic. Who exactly is going to do this? Who will supervise to make sure that clandestine work on nuclear bombs is not renewed? Who will ensure that missile development is not part of a nuclear strategy? In the past, the IAEA was effectively neutered when Iran expelled its inspectors, destroyed cameras and monitoring equipment and banned any inspections. If the Iranians are allowed to once again get away with ducking and diving and pulling the wool over the eyes of the international community, the results will be disastrous. Who will ensure that China, Russia, North Korea or Pakistan will not secretly deliver nuclear technology and material?

Human Rights

Any deal which leaves the Mullahs free to execute, imprison and torture their own citizens and enables the regime to persecute women and religious and ethnic minorities is not worth the paper it might be written on.

International legitimacy

Allowing Iran to be a valued member of international organisations while at the same time it vows to annihilate Israel demonstrates hypocrisy and double standards on a grand scale.

Mediators

Embracing the likes of Israel-hating Turkey and terror-funding Qatar as “mediators” with Iran is a flawed strategy and a recipe for a suspect outcome.

It could be that talk of a deal is just so much hot air. On the other hand, if it materialises and fails to address the above-mentioned challenges, it will go down in history as another Munich-type act of folly.

Waving a piece of paper and claiming it brings peace in our time will be a fatal exercise of lethal futility.

The Inversion of “Terror”: The Ideological Architecture Behind the EU’s Settler Sanctions

Europe’s Blind Spot

In his 2009 book “Blandt Kriminelle Muslimer” (“Among Criminal Muslims”), Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels described years of clinical work with young Muslim inmates at Copenhagen’s Sønderbro facility. His central finding was that standard Western rehabilitation frameworks failed because they presumed equality between the individual and society. Sennels argued many of his subjects held a different premise: a cultural and religious sense of inherent superiority over Western host societies, where equality is not the norm—a society or person either commands authority or is subjected to it.

Sennels’s observations create discomfort in Europe’s dominant intellectual framework. He notes a cultural-supremacist dimension within Islamist movements. This dimension is not the product of Western oppression and does not respond to Western accommodation. The framework cannot name it because it codes Muslim populations as oppressed. Anything contradicting that coding is filtered out, reframed, or attributed to the host society’s failure. This is the blind spot. It connects the EU’s paralysis at home to its moral inversion abroad. They are the same phenomenon.

The Framework That Replaced International Law

That framework is postcolonial ideology. It did not emerge from European foreign ministries. It emerged from the post-war academy and reached international institutions through a generation of activists, advisers, and staff trained in its categories. Its lineage runs through Frantz Fanon, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Edward Said. These three figures transformed how Western elites think about violence, legitimacy, and the non-Western world.

Fanon, in “The Wretched of the Earth” (1961), argued that anti-colonial violence is not just instrumental but also psychologically cleansing. It is a means by which the colonized recover their humanity. Sartre, in his preface to that book, extended the argument. He said violence by the colonized against the colonizer is not a crime to be judged, but a historical necessity to be understood. Said’s “Orientalism” (1978) supplied the epistemological move that completed the structure. He recast Western scholarship on the Middle East as an instrument of domination. This move disqualified the analytic categories—terrorism, jihad, religious supremacism—that Western observers had used to describe the region.

The result was a binary that replaced liberal categories. The world split into oppressors—Western, capitalist, colonial, and, by extension, Jewish-Israeli—and the oppressed, whose violence became resistance. Within this binary, asking “Is this act terrorism?” is impossible.

This framework entered international law through the United Nations in the 1960s and 1970s. The Soviet bloc, the Arab states, and the Non-Aligned Movement built a General Assembly majority. They translated postcolonial theory into resolutions. UNGA Resolution 1514 (1960) declared a universal right to end colonialism. Later resolutions extended that right to the means of pursuing it. These changes effectively exempted designated “national liberation movements” from the international prohibitions against political violence that applied to everyone else. The 1974 platforming of Yasser Arafat at the General Assembly—in military uniform, with a holster at his hip—was the public ratification of the shift. Terrorism, when committed by the correctly coded actor, was now a legitimate form of political expression.

Everything in international institutions follows this inherited framework: the 2016 UN Human Rights Council database of businesses linked to Israeli settlements, the steady expansion of that list, and now the EU’s May 2026 sanctions. The framework makes the equivalence between Hamas and Israeli civic organizations feel coherent to officials who adopt it. Hamas is branded as resistance; Israeli settlers are branded as the leading edge of the last colonial project. The empirical record of what each actually does is processed through that filter.

The Problem Europe Cannot Name

This is where the framework meets the facts on the ground in Europe itself. For two decades, Europe has absorbed a wave of Islamist terror and unassimilated migrant crime that “oppressor-oppressed” cannot process. The Bataclan, Nice, Berlin, Manchester, the Samuel Paty beheading, the Vienna shootings, the Brussels football attack, and the Eiffel Tower stabbing. The grooming-gang scandals across northern England that local authorities ignored for a decade out of fear of being called racist. The no-go neighborhoods in Malmö and the Paris banlieues, where the state’s monopoly on force has quietly lapsed. The surge of antisemitic assaults has made Jewish life untenable in parts of France and Sweden. None of this fits a framework in which Muslim populations are coded only as oppressed, so none of it can be named for what it is.

What cannot be named must be displaced. Europe’s political class cannot confront the cultural-supremacist dimension Sennels documented inside its own cities. So, they project the category of “extremism” onto a target the framework permits: Israeli civilians in Judea and Samaria. The May 2026 sanctions are a mechanism. By placing Hamas and four Israeli civic organizations on the same list, the EU creates symmetry. This lets European officials denounce “extremism” in the abstract—without ever having to identify the specific extremism degrading their own societies.

The cost of the displacement falls in both directions. Israel is asked to absorb the moral burden of a crisis that is not its own. Europe loses, with each round of projection, the conceptual tools it needs to confront its actual crisis. A continent that cannot distinguish a Jewish farmer in Area C from a Hamas operative in Gaza will not be able to distinguish, when the moment requires it, between a citizen and a jihadist in its own cities.

FAQ

What is described as Europe’s “blind spot”?

The article defines it as the inability of European political and intellectual systems to recognize or openly discuss forms of cultural or religious supremacism within Islamist movements because those groups are primarily viewed through an “oppressed minority” framework.

How does the piece connect postcolonial theory to international institutions?

It argues that ideas originating in post-war academic thought gradually entered organizations such as the United Nations through activists, diplomats, and political movements, eventually influencing international law and policy debates surrounding colonialism and political violence.

Why are the EU sanctions discussed in the article significant?

The article presents the sanctions as an example of what it sees as moral equivalence between Hamas and certain Israeli civic organizations, arguing that this reflects the broader ideological framework criticized throughout the piece.