JNS.org – I don’t know the word for “chutzpah” in Turkish, but whatever it is, it applies in spades to recent comments from Fatih Ceylan, Turkey’s former Ambassador to NATO.

Speaking to Al-Monitor about the security implications of Turkey’s full-throated support for Hamas, Ceylan poured cold water on the proposition that Israel might carry out targeted killings of Hamas and allied terrorists based there, as it has done with spectacular success in Lebanon and Iran over the last week. After dismissing the likelihood of similar operations on Turkish soil, Ceylan added that were one to happen, “[I]n such a case, Turkey will certainly take this move to NATO.”

When it comes to NATO, Turkey—under the brutally authoritarian rule of its diehard Islamist president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan—has stood out as the alliance’s greatest liability. Indeed, had Turkey not joined NATO in 1952, when it was ruled by a secular, Western-oriented government, there’s no question that it would even be a candidate for membership in the present day. What Erdoğan has done is to leverage Turkey’s membership to undermine the alliance from within, functioning almost as a fifth column.

In Syria, for example, Turkish forces have carried out strikes against the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), who are, in turn, backed by the United States—Ankara’s ostensible ally and the most powerful of NATO’s 32 members. In October 2023, the situation was so bad that the United States was compelled to shoot down a Turkish drone—one NATO member taking military action against another.

Erdoğan’s relationship with Vladimir Putin’s regime in Russia is just as disturbing. Ankara was booted out of the US F-35 fighter jet program in 2019 after it purchased S-400 missiles from the Russians. In the wake of Putin’s aggression against democratic Ukraine, Turkey has actively participated in busting the international sanctions on Moscow and aided corrupt Russian oligarchs in moving funds through Turkish banks.

Turkey has also been actively hostile to other NATO members, especially Greece. Half of the island of Cyprus has been illegally occupied by the Turks since 1974; earlier this year, Erdoğan showed up there to celebrate the 50th anniversary of that invasion. It has tried to stem NATO’s expansion, holding up Sweden’s application for membership, which was finally approved only last March. As my colleague at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Sinan Ciddi, memorably put it: “Pick your theater of vital security interests for the NATO alliance, and you’ll discover a Turkish connection that actively undermines it.”

So when Ceyhan breezily says that Turkey will raise any Israeli operations on its territory with NATO—hoping, no doubt, that doing so will trigger Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, which enshrines the principle that an attack on one member is an attack on all—one might reasonably expect, given this woeful record, that the other NATO members will proffer a middle finger in Ankara’s direction.

Right now, the Middle East is in the most febrile state arguably since the State of Israel’s creation in 1948. As we sit on the cusp of a regional war that would pose an unmistakable existential threat to Israel, Turkey is doing everything it can to stoke the flames. Erdoğan is already known for his vicious rhetorical attacks on the Jewish state, laced with the crudest antisemitism. Since Hamas’s pogrom of Oct. 7, that has only gotten worse, with Erdoğan claiming that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is “worse than Hitler” and depicting Israel as a reincarnation of the Third Reich. Additionally, the Turkish president has taken special delight in feting the rapists of Hamas on his home turf, among them the late, unlamented Ismail Haniyeh, who was eliminated on July 31 with wonderful symbolism in Tehran. Haniyeh’s assassination unleashed another foul Erdoğan tirade, along with an announcement of a national day of mourning over the loss of his “brother.” To cap it all, he even threatened at the end of July to invade Israel, boasting: “Just as we entered Nagorno-Karabakh, just as we entered Libya, we might do the same to them. There is nothing we can’t do.”

As a result, Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz aptly compared Erdoğan to the late Iraqi tyrant Saddam Hussein as he called on NATO to boot Turkey from its ranks. The problem with that proposal, however, is that there is no procedure within the alliance to expel a member—even when, as in Turkey’s case, said member makes an active mockery of NATO’s commitment to democratic values and the defense of open societies.

For that reason, NATO has to think honestly, bravely and creatively about Turkey’s future status. Honestly, because it is now painfully clear that Turkey’s stance undermines and contradicts NATO’s core purpose, and that needs to be said out loud. Bravely, because one or more states need to summon the guts to publicly question Turkey’s value to the alliance and get the United States on board—something that might be easier to achieve with a Republican, rather than a Democratic, administration. Creatively, because the absence of an expulsion mechanism means that member states need to figure out another way to get Turkey out of NATO.

That could mean refusing to take part in military exercises with Turkey; ending intelligence sharing with Ankara’s security services; shunning meetings with Turkish military officers; and providing usable intelligence to Israel about Turkey’s support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Erdoğan should also be challenged for his hypocrisy in not exiting NATO voluntarily. If he is the great Islamic leader that he claims to be, if he is aligning himself more and more with Iranian interests, if the murderers and marauders in Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank, Yemen, Syria and Iraq are his new best friends, then what on earth is he doing in NATO? Turkish NATO membership doesn’t serve his goals. Neither does it serve ours.

NATO has faced a few external tests since its formation, but Turkey is the biggest internal one since French President Charles de Gaulle withdrew from NATO’s command structure in 1966. It is also more dangerous since de Gaulle’s objections to US domination of NATO didn’t drive France into the hands of the Soviets. To protect themselves and what the alliance stands for, NATO members have only one option: suspend cooperation with Turkey and do all they can to secure Turkey’s departure from an alliance that it only disgraces.

The post Enough Is Enough: NATO Must Suspend Cooperation With Turkey first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

JNS.org – What is the central vibe in the Jewish world today? In a word, anxiety.

Justified anxiety, I might add.

It seems everywhere we turn, there are anti-Israel and anti-Jewish forces mobilizing for action. The hatred and chutzpah have reached new levels. There’s no fear, for example, about spray painting “Hamas is Coming” on a statue in Washington, DC, or assaulting Jews outside a synagogue in my Los Angeles neighborhood of Pico-Robertson.

The good news is that Jews have mobilized in response. We have our rights and we’re fighting to enforce them. Haters must pay a price. Lawsuits are being filed. Scores of organizations are on the case. We’re making noise.

All of this fighting is crucial and we must never relent. Indeed, we cover the fighting extensively in the Jewish Journal. But that’s not why I’m writing this column; you don’t need me to repeat the obvious.

I’m writing to bring attention to an unusual side effect in the fight against antisemitism; one that is not easy to see. This side effect, if we don’t take action, has the potential to severely weaken the Jewish brand in America.

Let me explain.

A brand is as valuable as a reputation. That applies to organizations, individuals and products as well to groups of people. The Jews in America have always been blessed with a strong brand, one that is marked, among other things, by our inclination to give back to our country.

How is the fight against antisemitism influencing that brand?

Branding is all about the noise we make. That noise helps shape the brand we become. Right now, the Jewish noise in America is very much about fighting those who hate us. Whether we like it or not, we’re becoming the group that cares mostly about protecting itself.

This is not a criticism. Fighting for safety is primordial. It does, however, hold a subtle trap: Safety is so important that it tends to drown out everything else, to suck up all the noise. As a result, Jews become associated with weakness; fear on one side; and seeking safety on the other.

This not only “shrinks” the Jewish brand, but it’s also not true to who we are.

The Jewish way, which promotes growth, goodness and renewal, has always treated safety as a beginning, not an end.

Perhaps the ultimate example is Israel. In its 76 years of existence, no country has been under more physical threat than the world’s only Jewish state. And yet, it is known not just for its strong military but for its vibrancy and creative spirit, not to mention its many contributions to the world.

As critical as safety is, Israel reminds us that there’s a lot more to the Jewish brand than seeking protection.

In America, no group has contributed more than the Jews. From comedy to science to academia to literature to Broadway to Hollywood to social justice to endless other fields, the Jewish reputation has sparkled because Jews are natural contributors. Antisemitism or no antisemitism, our brand has always been dominated by our giving gene.

I bumped into one of my favorite Jewish “givers” recently—Matisyahu. I mentioned that infamous concert in Spain where he sang the “Jerusalem” song in front of anti-Israel protestors. He remembered it well. What I loved, I told him, is that he didn’t use his position on stage to verbally push back on the haters who wanted to shut him down.

No, all he did was sing. And boy did he sing. While the haters hated, Matisyahu did what he does best. He performed. He gave of himself to the audience.

Giving of ourselves has been the American Jewish way since we landed on these shores.

Now that we’re feeling under siege, that Jewish way is being tested. Naturally, the noise is going to the act of fighting the haters, of seeking protection. It’s understandable.

But if we’re serious about revitalizing the Jewish brand—which is our most valuable asset—we must bring more noise to the Jewish act of bringing goodness, of bringing a positive spirit to the world around us.

How can we do that?

One way is if every Jewish event—whether for major groups like the ADL, AJC and Federations or smaller neighborhood groups—would feature one Jew who is giving back to the world and is not connected to that particular cause. Just a Jew doing good things.

This would offer hundreds of occasions each year to make some noise about Jews and goodness. I can envision Jewish organizations taking 10% of their “fighting antisemitism” budgets and allocating it to promoting Jews who share their contributions—from grade school kids to Holocaust survivors, from entertainers to scientists, from doctors and artists to architects and volunteers in soup kitchens.

The good thing, of course, is that these Jews are everywhere. They’re the easiest people to find.

The spreading of Jewish contributions, creativity and goodness won’t just revitalize the Jewish brand throughout America, it will also provide a welcome injection of positive energy into our anxious community.

Yes, we must never relent in fighting for the safety of Jews. But we must also never relent in honoring the Jewish way of never settling, of always aiming higher.

We are determined fighters when we are forced to be, but we are givers always. And giving, from what I hear, helps reduce anxiety.

Originally published by Jewish Journal.

The post Rebuilding the Jewish Brand in America first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

JNS.org – One of the most pressing questions facing the United States, and especially the American Jewish community, is what should be done about academia.

The issue has become a lightning rod because of the eruption of genocidal antisemitism and anti-Americanism on campus in the wake of Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre. This renewed neo-Nazism, spearheaded by the Red-Green Alliance between progressive leftists and Islamic supremacists, revealed something decidedly ugly: American academia has become little more than a totalitarian state, a dictatorship of the professoriate determined to impose its radical leftist ideology not only on students but the entire nation. And this regime has now collapsed into the inevitable nadir of all totalitarian regimes—antisemitism. It is, in other words, an existential threat to the most basic values of the republic.

It is particularly disturbing because these institutions are the manufacturing center of the American ruling class. For this reason alone, something clearly has to be done.

The question is: what? There are numerous possibilities, but the best solution has yet to be mentioned: the imposition of a “fairness doctrine” on academia.

The fairness doctrine was a policy applied to media outlets by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for much of the 20th century. Put simply, it required media outlets to present diverse views on any issue of public interest or controversy.

In 1949, the FCC formalized the doctrine via a report on “editorializing by broadcast licensees.” In it, the agency based its decision on the “relationship” between the private interests of those who own media outlets and the public interest in open debate and a fully informed citizenry.

The report stated: “One important aspect of this relationship, we believe, results from the fact that the needs and interests of the general public with respect to programs devoted to new commentary and opinion can only be satisfied by making available to them for their consideration and acceptance or rejection, of varying and conflicting views held by responsible elements of the community. And it is in the light of these basic concepts that the problems of insuring fairness in the presentation of news and opinion and the place in such a picture of any expression of the views of the station licensee as such must be considered.”

“If, as we believe to be the case, the public interest is best served in a democracy through the ability of the people to hear expositions of the various positions taken by responsible groups and individuals on particular topics and to choose between them, it is evident that broadcast licensees have an affirmative duty generally to encourage and implement the broadcast of all sides of controversial public issues over their facilities, over and beyond their obligation to make available on demand opportunities for the expression of opposing views,” the FCC held.

The fairness doctrine lasted until the late 1980s when it was finally done away with by the Reagan administration. Nonetheless, left-wing activists and politicians have consistently demanded its reinstatement, seeing it as a weapon against right-wing media outlets, particularly talk radio. Thus far, they have failed in their efforts.

The basis for imposing such a doctrine on academia should be obvious. First, the FCC’s justification for it clearly applies to the universities.

Whenever it is criticized, the professoriate regime always resorts to the “academic freedom” argument, holding that any curbs on its power amount to suppression of the right to free expression. But this claim is based on a fundamental distortion of the role of academia.

These institutions do not exist in a vacuum; as noted, they are the manufacturing center of the American ruling class. And so, they have a massive impact on the lives of every American. All Americans thus have a stake and a say in how academia conducts itself. The universities are institutions with social responsibilities that are obligated to act in the public interest. If they do not fulfill these responsibilities—and they won’t—then the public has the right to take measures to change those institutions.

Moreover, the implementation of a fairness doctrine would be a simple matter: For example, when a leftist professor or administrator is hired, a conservative professor or administrator must be hired next. When a left-wing teach-in is held, a right-wing speaker must be invited to speak at it. When a protest or demonstration takes place, opponents of it must be given the resources necessary to hold their own event. If campus media outlets opine on an important issue, solicitation of a response must be mandatory. When academic publications advocate a specific ideology, they must give equal space to a rebuttal.

A fairness doctrine would have a distinctly positive effect on campus. First, it would neutralize the professoriate regime’s strongest weapon: the imposition of an intellectual blockade on students, denying them the opportunity to hear any opposing point of view. It would foster genuine diversity of thought and tamp down campus tensions by forcing students to entertain, rather than demonize, opposing ideas. It would restore some measure of integrity to faculty and administration because each side of the ideological divide would automatically become a check on the power of their opponents.

The professoriate regime will oppose a fairness doctrine with everything it has. Nonetheless, it will almost certainly fail because it has already conceded the argument. As a cabal of progressive leftists, it has consistently advocated for the reimposition of the fairness doctrine on the media. It can hardly complain when the same is demanded of itself.

This will be a supreme irony, but a welcome one. It might even save the republic from the cancer it has allowed to fester in its own ruling class for far too long.

The post Should We Impose a Fairness Doctrine on Academia? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.