Connect with us

Uncategorized

Erdoğan’s Sanctuary: Why NATO’s ‘Ally’ Is the Quartermaster for Hamas’ Next War

Turkish President Tayyip Erdoğan is welcomed by Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani in Doha, Qatar, Oct. 22, 2025. Photo: Murat Kula/Turkish Presidential Press Office/Handout via REUTERS

The intelligence bombshell dropped this week by the Israel Defense Forces and the Israel Security Agency confirms what strategic analysts have long feared: Turkey, a nominal NATO ally and a pivotal European partner, is actively serving as the operational and financial command center for the Iran-Hamas terror axis.

This revelation is not about a few misguided transactions; it exposes a sophisticated, Iran-directed cash network operating within central Turkey, utilizing the country’s financial infrastructure to move hundreds of millions of dollars to Hamas. This massive illicit funding flow is designed not merely to sustain the terror group, but to systematically rebuild its capabilities outside the Gaza Strip, ensuring its ability to launch future attacks against Israel and destabilize the entire region.

The intelligence is forensic and undeniable. Israeli agencies have identified key Gazan operatives, including Tamer Hassan, a senior official in Hamas’ finance office in Turkey, and currency exchangers Khalil Farwana and Farid Abu Dair, who are central to this Iranian-directed operation.

Turkey is providing the sanctuary — the physical space, the financial rails, and the political protection — that enables Hamas to bypass global sanctions and regenerate its forces. As one expert noted, the very presence of these Turkish-based operatives demonstrates how Hamas has successfully diversified its financial footprint precisely to evade the very border controls and sanctions the West is supposed to enforce.

The most immediate and self-defeating policy failure exposed by these findings lies in the ongoing US debate over post-war Gaza. How can the West entrust the post-war security of Gaza — a mission predicated on dismantling Hamas — to a nation that is providing the funding infrastructure for Hamas’ reconstitution right now? Inviting President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s military into Gaza is akin to asking the arsonist to lead the fire brigade.

Erdoğan’s motivation for this dangerous double game is rooted in domestic political survival and ideological positioning. He has relentlessly framed himself as the global champion of the Palestinian cause, a stance that solidifies his support among his conservative, Islamist-leaning base. This aggressive, public hostility toward Israel is vital to his political legitimacy at home.

Yet, as reports confirm, this public defiance is often paired with private pragmatism. Individuals within Erdoğan’s inner circle have reportedly asked Hamas leadership to “leave Turkey quietly” and even pushed the terror group to accept the Trump administration’s earlier Gaza proposals, despite provisions unfavorable to Hamas. This is the portrait of a leader who is prioritizing his own domestic political calculus over any commitment to the NATO alliance or genuine regional peace. He sustains a permissive sanctuary for terrorists while simultaneously maneuvering just enough to avoid the complete diplomatic breakdown that might jeopardize his economic lifeline.

Turkey’s role must be identified for what it is: a hostile sanctuary. A core NATO responsibility is collective security, yet Turkey is using its access to Western financial systems and its geographical position to actively facilitate the rebuilding of a designated terror organization directed by the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, Iran. The failure to shut down this financial conduit proves that Ankara is prioritizing the Tehran-Beirut-Gaza axis over its commitments to its Western allies.

The time for cautious diplomatic language is over. The US and Israel must treat Turkey not as a problematic ally requiring careful handling, but as the operational partner of a hostile terror network.

The intelligence is clear: Hamas cannot be defeated on the battlefield only to be rebuilt in the banking halls of Istanbul. The long war against Iran’s proxies is fundamentally a financial war. To secure Israel’s long-term future and stabilize the broader Middle East, the US must move immediately to impose comprehensive, crippling sanctions on the Turkish financial infrastructure that is enabling this terror funding. The only way to stop the cancer of Hamas is to surgically remove its life support, and the intelligence confirms that the critical, vulnerable breaking point is currently located inside a supposed ally. The security of the Mediterranean, and the long-term viability of the Abraham Accords, depends on holding Erdoğan accountable for his nation serving as the Quartermaster for Hamas’ next war.

Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

New documentary captures the lively history of Yiddish theater in America

The new documentary Immigrant Songs: Yiddish Theater and the American Jewish Experience, produced by the Milken Archive of Jewish Music, is fast, entertaining and a good introduction to the topic.

Focusing mainly on the musical side of the story, but covering ‘straight plays’ as well, the film opens with a superb ‘warm-up act’: “Hu Tsa Tsa,” a stock Yiddish vaudeville number performed by the widely mourned Bruce Adler, who died in 2008 at age 63. Bursting with charm and talent, Adler, scion of a top Yiddish vaudeville family, demonstrates that Yiddish theater used to be pretty damned lively.

What follows is the oft-told story of the rise and decline of the American Yiddish theater, beginning with its prehistory in the Purimshpiels — the annual performances that for centuries served as the only secular entertainment in the Ashkenazic world. From there the film takes us to Yiddish theater’s 1876 birth in Romania, courtesy of Avrom Goldfadn, a.k.a. “The Father of Yiddish Theater.”

The film also describes Yiddish theater’s arrival in America, which, thanks to massive Jewish immigration, quickly became its capital. We learn of its influence on American theater’s styles of acting and set design. And the film describes the decline of its audience, due to assimilation and the immigration quotas of the 1920s.

There’s an excellent section on “The Big Four” Yiddish theater composers — Joseph Rumshinsky, Alexander Olshanetsky, Abe Ellstein, and Sholom Secunda.  All in all, the documentary does a fine job of teaching the aleph-beyz, the ABCs, of the history of Yiddish theater to the uninitiated.

The most impressive aspect of Immigrant Songs is its well-crafted pace. Though there are a few snippets of vintage Yiddish cinema (Yiddish theater’s “kid brother”), most of the film consists of recent concert footage, some well-selected photographs and ephemera, and a lot of talking heads. Almost every prominent Yiddish theater historian was interviewed for it, along with several musicologists, an archivist, Yiddish actors, directors, producers, etc. (Full disclosure: I am one of them.) Director Jeff Janeczko cuts between the interviewees so smoothly — sometimes in mid-sentence — that it feels like they’re in the same room and feeding off each other’s energy. The movie just flies by.

There are a few errors. Marc Chagall is described as an important designer of Yiddish theater; actually he designed one minor production in Russia in 1921, and never did another. In a bizarre, and biblically illiterate, statement, one interviewee claims that Jews hadn’t developed a theater culture earlier because the Second Commandment’s prohibition of “graven images” forbade the construction of sets. (Actually it’s about idol worship.)

Another interviewee claims that the Yiddish play Der Yeshiva Bokher; oder, Der Yudisher Hamlet — The Yeshiva Student; or, The Jewish Hamlet (Yiddish plays then often had subtitles), is closely patterned on Shakespeare’s tragedy. In truth, the play — written by Isidore Zolotarevski, the prolific writer of shund (“trash”) melodramas — is not only awful, but is as close to Shakespeare as baked ham is to your grandmother’s kreplach.

The film’s biggest fault, however, is its short running time (45 minutes). This is a rich topic, and too much is left by the wayside in the interest of brevity. There’s nothing about what shund melodramas felt like, why they appealed to their audiences, and why they became the only thing a lot of people know about Yiddish theater.

There’s also nothing about the World War I-era wave of shtetl plays, which reflected immigrants’ homesickness without indulging in nostalgia, and provided some of Yiddish theater’s shining moments with plays like Green Fields, The Empty Inn and Tevye. And the most important play in the Yiddish canon, The Dybbuk, is never mentioned.

Perhaps most surprisingly, considering the film’s emphasis on music, there is no examination of Yiddish theater’s influence on Broadway’s music. (Cole Porter — ironically, the only gentile among the major composers of Broadway’s Golden Age — had a pronounced Jewish lilt in a number of his songs, and he actually attended Yiddish theater regularly.)

The film’s last section is about the renewed interest in Yiddish that began in the 1970s and ’80s with the klezmer revival. Much of it focuses on the 2018 Yiddish production of Fiddler on the Roof in Yiddish, whose success was predetermined the moment the production was announced.

For the overwhelming majority of American Jews, from the Orthodox to the unaffiliated, Fiddler is all they know about the lives of their ancestors. And though it’s a world-class piece of musical theater, as a work of social history Fiddler is as phony as a glass eye. Nevertheless, for American Jews it’s a sacred text.

Fiddler was a huge hit, but it was a gimmick, a one-off, whose success does very little for the future of Yiddish theater. Worse, the Yiddish — not the text, but the lines spoken by most of the actors — was often mispronounced and had the wrong intonation. (One elderly gentleman of my acquaintance, a native Yiddish speaker from Czechoslovakia, told me he didn’t understand a word the actors said, and spent the whole evening reading the English supertitles.)

What follows the Fiddler section in Immigrant Songs is mostly bromides. But the best current Yiddish theater reflects the kind of fresh thinking that keeps the form alive.

An occasional well-presented museum piece, like the Folksbiene’s 2016 revival of Rumshinsky’s operetta The Golden Bride, is a very worthwhile project (though it, too, suffered from poorly spoken Yiddish). But the most dynamic contemporary Yiddish theater is, in Jeffrey Shandler’s apt phrase, “post vernacular” — i .e., the use of Yiddish is self-conscious, a deliberate choice rather than something that’s done automatically, as it would have been a century ago when there were a lot more Yiddish speakers in the world.

An example of this is the 2017 neo-realist film Menashe, which could far more easily and conventionally have been made in English. Or a well-known piece done in Yiddish translation, like Shane Baker’s stunning Yiddish translation of Waiting for Godot, can become something much more valuable than a mere stunt. The Yiddish version, under Moshe Yassur’s straightforward direction, humanized the play, stripping it of the encrusted pretentiousness that had hidden its soul. (When it was presented in the International Samuel Beckett Festival in Ireland, multiple audience members approached the cast afterwards with the same reaction: “I don’t speak a word of Yiddish. But I’ve seen Godot five or six times, and this is the first time I understood it.”)

There’s a lot to be learned from Immigrant Songs. If you find yourself hungry for more, you couldn’t do better than to seek out YIVO’s online Yiddish theater course “Oh, Mama, I’m in Love!” But by all means, start with Immigrant Songs. It’s a very entertaining and informative appetizer.

The post New documentary captures the lively history of Yiddish theater in America appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

UK PM Starmer Says There Could Be New Powers to Ban Pro-Palestinian Marches

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer gives a media statement at Downing Street in London, Britain, April 30, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Jack Taylor/File photo

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the government could ban pro-Palestinian marches in some circumstances because of the “cumulative effect” the demonstrations had on the Jewish community after two Jewish men were stabbed in London on Wednesday.

Starmer told the BBC that he would always defend freedom of expression and peaceful protest, but chants like “Globalize the Intifada” during demonstrations were “completely off limits” and those voicing them should be prosecuted.

Pro-Palestinian marches have become a regular feature in London since the October 2023 attack by Hamas on Israel that triggered the Gaza war. Critics say the demonstrations have generated hostility and become a focus for antisemitism.

Protesters have argued they are exercising their democratic right to spotlight ongoing human rights and political issues related to the situation in Gaza.

Starmer said he was not denying there were “very strong legitimate views about the Middle East, about Gaza,” but many people in the Jewish community had told him they were concerned about the repeat nature of the marches.

Asked if the tougher response should focus on chants and banners, or whether the protests should be stopped altogether, Starmer said: “I think certainly the first, and I think there are instances for the latter.”

“I think it’s time to look across the board at protests and the cumulative effect,” he said, adding that the government needed to look at what further powers it could take.

Britain raised its terrorism threat level to “severe” on Thursday amid mounting security concerns that foreign states were helping fuel violence, including against the Jewish community.

“We are seeing an elevated threat to Jewish and Israeli individuals and institutions in the UK,” the head of counter-terrorism policing, Laurence Taylor, said in a statement, adding that police were also working “against an unpredictable global situation that has consequences closer to home, including physical threats by state-linked actors.”

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

War Likely to Resume After Trump’s Rejection of Latest Proposal, Says IRGC General

Iranians carry a model of a missile during a celebration following an IRGC attack on Israel, in Tehran, Iran, April 15, 2024. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS

i24 NewsA senior Iranian military figure said that fighting with the US was “likely” to resume after President Donald Trump stated he was dissatisfied with Tehran’s latest proposal, regime media reported on Saturday.

The comments of General Mohammad Jafar Asadi, one of the top Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, were relayed by the Fars news agency, considered as a mouthpiece of the the powerful paramilitary body.

“Evidence has shown that the Americans do not not adhere to any commitments,” Asadi was quoted as saying.

He further added that Washington’s decision-making was “primarily media-driven aimed first at preventing a drop in oil prices and second at extricating themselves from the mess they have created.”

Iranian armed forces are ready “for any new adventures or foolishness from the Americans,” he said, going to assert that the Iran war would prove for the US a tragedy comparable with what was for Israel the October 7 massacre.

“Just as our martyred Leader said that the Zionist regime will never be the same as before the Al‑Aqsa Storm operation [the name chosen by Hamas leadership for the October 7, 2023 massacre in southern Israel], the United States will also never return to what it was before its attack on Iran,” he said. “The world has understood the true nature of America, and no matter how much malice it shows now, it is no longer the America that many once feared.”

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News