Uncategorized
In Brigitte Bardot, a complicated legacy of movie stardom, activism, xenophobia and antisemitism
The French actress Brigitte Bardot, who died Sunday at the age of 91, leaves behind a legacy as an actress who starred in a few notable and many less than notable films. Perhaps more importantly, Bardot also starred as BB (pronounced, bien sûr, as “baby”), a cultural icon who embodied the glories and miseries of a rapidly modernizing postwar France.
Life is short, art is long, and politics is, at times, even longer. At least, this is true for the life of Bardot. Bardot burst upon the world stage in 1956 with élan (and an ellipsis) upon the release of “Et Dieu…créa la femme” and made her last film “L’Histoire très bonne et très joyeuses de Colinot” in 1973. This makes for a movie career that spanned 17 years. If we were than to subtract 1973 from 2025, we get 52 years.
But during the 52 years Bardot lived following her retirement from cinema, the world witnessed a different kind of spectacle, one which shifted from the aesthetics of Bardot as a pop phenomenon during the 1950s — she was described by Simone de Beauvoir, in an Esquire essay, as “the most perfect specimen of the ambiguous nymph” — to Bardot’s downwardly spiraling politics in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
A starting point to think about Bardot and politics — or, better yet, ideology — is 1969. While France was still reeling from the student rebellion of 1968, an event that nearly brought down the government of Charles de Gaulle, Bardot was named as the model for “Marianne,” a mythic figure who was, and remains, the personification of the French republic built on the revolutionary values of 1789.
Bardot remained the model for several years, with postage stamps of her likeness on countless envelopes and busts in city halls across the country. In 1985, however, Catherine Deneuve became the face of Marianne. The two stars tended to play very different kinds of roles in their films: Bardot’s barely tamed sexuality contrasted sharply with the mesmerizing iciness of many of Deneuve’s characters.
As time passed, the two Mariannes revealed very different political values. In 1971, Deneuve signed the history-changing “Manifesto of 343 Women,” which supported the legalization of abortion, and has spent her life in the republican camp — an opponent of the death penalty and a part of the “republican wall” formed against Jean-Marie Le Pen during the 2002 presidential elections.
Meanwhile, Bardot’s politics veered ever more rightward until they could veer no further. In 1992, Bardot attended a dinner in Saint-Tropez — the sleepy Provençal port she turned into, well, Saint-Tropez — hosted by Jean-Marie Le Pen’s second wife, Jany Le Pen. Another guest was Jean d’Ormale, a shadowy businessman and a close advisor of Le Pen, who soon became Bardot’s fourth and final husband. Bowled over by Bardot, Le Pen recalled, “Compared to Bardot, Marilyn Monroe looked like a bar waitress.” He added that he and Bardot had much in common: “She loves animals and misses the France that was clean and proper.”
In her own memoir B.B., Bardot returned Le Pen’s compliment. He was, she wrote, “a charming and intelligent man who was revolted by many of the same things I was.” For the next two decades, Bardot’s righteous campaign against animal cruelty was entwined with her noxious campaign against Muslim immigrants. Her hatred of the Muslim preparation of halal meat transmogrified into a hatred of Muslims, period. From the late 1990s and late 2000s, Bardot, who persistently railed against the Muslim “invasion” of France, was convicted several times by French courts of inciting racial hatred.
Inevitably, her visceral loathing of ritual slaughter bled into antisemitism. In 2014, Bardot was widely criticized for her description of kosher and halal traditions as “ritual sacrifice.” Moshe Kantor, the president of the European Jewish Congress, ripped into this phrase, declaring it was “deeply offensive and a slur against the Jewish people.” Kantor noted that while Bardot “may well be concerned for the welfare of animals, her long-standing support for the far right and for discrimination against minorities in France shows a constant disdain for human rights instead.”
In a eulogy posted on X, President Emmanuel Macron observed that “with her films, her voice, her dazzling glory, her initials (BB), her sorrows, her generous passion for animals, and her face that became Marianne, Brigitte Bardot embodied a life of freedom…We mourn a legend of the century.” All of this is true, but it is equally true that BB embodied yet other sorrows and passions that cast a lengthening and darkening shadow over this century.
The post In Brigitte Bardot, a complicated legacy of movie stardom, activism, xenophobia and antisemitism appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Al Jazeera Forum Platforms Terrorist Leaders and Their Sympathizers
The Al Jazeera Media Network logo is seen on its headquarters building in Doha, Qatar, June 8, 2017. Photo: REUTERS/Naseem Zeitoon
At the 17th annual Al Jazeera Forum in Doha, Qatar, familiar faces took the stage to discuss the aftermath of October 7 and its broader regional and global implications. These figures are familiar not for their credibility, but because the lineup included terrorist leaders and their sympathizers.
Upon entrance to the forum, an “in memoriam” lined the halls filled with faces of Al Jazeera journalists who died during the Israel-Hamas war.
Eitan Fischberger, who first exposed the terror-filled line up of speakers at the conference, found that five of these so-called journalists are also familiar faces. These “journalists” didn’t become well-known for trustworthy and accurate reporting, but rather because all five of them had well-established ties with terrorist organizations such as Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
Five. The answer is five Al Jazeera terrorists
https://t.co/2MjtM3MW9V pic.twitter.com/PQzULPF5zF
— Eitan Fischberger (@EFischberger) February 6, 2026
Hamas terrorist leader Khaled Meshaal and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi were two of the biggest attractions at the event. UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, sanctioned by the US for her pro-terror rhetoric, also took part in a session via video call.
Despite the mass slaughter of Iranian civilians, the focus of every speaker at the conference was laser-focused on Israel. This was not accidental. After all, Abbas Araghchi, who, given his position in the Iranian regime, has stood by as thousands of Iranian citizens were murdered, was given a spotlight.
From that platform, Araghchi blamed Israel for regional instability, saying that “Israel’s expansionist project requires that neighboring countries be weakened” and amounts to the “enforcement of permanent inequality.”
For this, he called for Israel to be “punished.” The irony would be laughable if it weren’t so grotesque. A senior official of a regime that jails dissidents, executes protesters, and bankrolls terrorist proxies across the region stood before an audience and positioned himself as a moral authority on justice and stability.
Iran’s FM Abbas Araghchi slammed the double standard allowing Israel to expand its military while others in the region are asked to reduce their defensive capabilities.
Araghchi spoke at the Al Jazeera Forum in Doha, an event focusing on geopolitical shifts in the Middle East. pic.twitter.com/sRQ8khI5D4
— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) February 7, 2026
Predictably, in Hamas terrorist leader Khaled Meshaal’s session, he similarly dodged any blame for the ensuing war. What he did was suggest that “the flood” — the operation name chosen for the October 7 massacre — successfully brought the Palestinian cause back to global consciousness. He specifically praised the outrage seen on university campuses and across social media, treating international unrest as a strategic victory.
Naturally, as a terrorist leader, Meshaal deflected the requirement for Hamas to disarm, saying “criminalizing the resistance” is not something it can accept. As long as Israel exists, Hamas will not disarm.
It is the most recent example of Hamas leaders being explicit in their absolute unwillingness to adhere to the ceasefire agreement to which they signed.
Beyond actual terrorists, terrorist sympathizer Francesca Albanese was invited to speak, joining a session abroad via video. Unsurprisingly, her words echoed those of the terrorist leaders listed above, as she spoke of Israel as the “common enemy” of the world.
It is dangerous enough that a UN Rapporteur shared a platform at the same conference as terrorists. That her language is barely distinguishable from that of designated terrorists should probably come as little surprise given Albanese’s previous actions.
Humanity has a “common enemy” in Israel, Francesca Albanese tells Qatar’s Al Jazeera forum pic.twitter.com/l1wXNiS7yP
— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) February 8, 2026
Mustafa Barghouti, who has similarly expressed support for Palestinian terrorism in the past, discussed how the Palestinian will could not be broken, and how the fact that people stayed in Gaza throughout the war displayed the “failure of Israel” despite the “genocide.” In reality, this only goes to show that Palestinian civilians were never the target of Israel, which fought tirelessly to root out Hamas and other terrorists, while doing its utmost to avoid harming civilians.
Mustafa Barghouti, secretary-general of the Palestinian National Initiative, said that the steadfastness of Palestinians in Gaza despite genocide, shows ‘the failure of Israel’.
Barghouti is at the Al Jazeera Forum, an event focusing on geopolitical shifts in the Middle East. pic.twitter.com/X9Fjex3kWc
— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) February 7, 2026
Al Jazeera’s support for terrorism is not new. What makes this moment particularly alarming is the scale of its influence on the world, and how it brings terrorists and their sympathizers onto a stage in light of global events. This was not a conference about the future of the Middle East. It was an echo chamber where terrorism got the platform.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
Uncategorized
Erdogan’s Atomic Ambition: Why Turkey Is the Middle East’s Next Proliferation Crisis
Riot police walk outside the Istanbul provincial office of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), as CHP supporters gather near the office, after a recent court ruling that ousted the CHP’s Istanbul provincial leadership, in Istanbul, Turkey, Sept. 8, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Dilara Acikgoz
As the global community remains transfixed by the diplomatic theater in Oman, a more ominous atomic shadow is lengthening across the Eastern Mediterranean.
While Western envoys chase a “nuclear framework” with a defiant Iran, Recep Tayyip Erdogan is quietly executing a multi-decade roadmap to transform Turkey into the region’s next nuclear-threshold state.
We are witnessing the birth of a sophisticated, NATO-embedded “Iran 2.0” — yet the international community continues to treat Ankara as a standard ally rather than the primary proliferation risk it has become.
Unit 1 of the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant stands at 99 percent completion. While marketed as a civilian energy panacea, Akkuyu represents a strategic Trojan Horse of unprecedented proportions. It is the world’s first “Build-Own-Operate” nuclear project, entirely financed and controlled by Russia’s Rosatom. This arrangement has not only granted the Kremlin a permanent nuclear anchor on NATO’s southern flank, but has also provided the Turkish state with the technical laboratory necessary to master the full nuclear fuel cycle under the guise of commercial cooperation.
The most alarming development in Turkey’s nuclear trajectory is not found in its power reactors, but in its naval shipyards. By officially prioritizing the “NUKDEN” initiative — Turkey’s nuclear-powered submarine program — Erdogan has discovered the ultimate legal loophole for domestic uranium enrichment. Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, “peaceful” enrichment remains a contentious grey area, but the production of highly enriched uranium for naval propulsion is a recognized military necessity that bypasses many traditional civilian safeguards.
By pursuing a nuclear navy, Ankara is signaling its intent to stockpile the very fissile material required for a warhead, all while maintaining a veneer of maritime sovereignty. This is a tactical evolution of the “Iran Model.” Where Tehran chose a path of open defiance, Ankara is choosing a path of “Legalist Proliferation,” using its status as a naval power to justify a fuel cycle that would otherwise trigger immediate international sanctions.
This “Stealth Proliferation” is backed by a massive, nine-billion-dollar cash injection from Moscow, ensuring that the infrastructure for this “naval requirement” is built with the highest Russian expertise.
A nuclear reactor is merely a forge; its true threat is realized only when paired with a delivery system. In June 2025, Erdogan issued a decree to massively expand Turkey’s production of medium- and long-range missiles. This was not a random military upgrade. When paired with the 2026 commissioning of Akkuyu, the picture becomes clear: Turkey is building the two halves of a nuclear deterrent in parallel.
The “Araghchi Doctrine” currently being debated in Doha — Iran’s refusal to negotiate on its own missile program — finds a mirror image in Ankara’s “National Missile Program.” Erdogan has been vocal in his disdain for the “nuclear OPEC,” arguing that it is unfair for some nations to possess nuclear-tipped missiles while others are barred from the club. By developing indigenous missile technology capable of reaching any capital in the Middle East or Europe, Turkey is ensuring that once its “breakout” occurs, the delivery mechanism will already be in place, tested, and ready.
For too long, Turkey has been granted what can only be described as a “NATO Pass.” Washington has consistently hesitated to enforce the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act with the necessary vigor, fearing the loss of the Incirlik airbase or a total rupture in the alliance. This hesitation has been read in Ankara as a green light. Erdogan views the international order not as a set of rules to follow, but as a set of constraints to be dismantled.
The strategic reality is that Turkey is no longer content to sit under the American nuclear umbrella. It seeks to build its own, potentially in a trilateral partnership with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. This “Islamic Nuclear Axis” would combine Turkish high-tech delivery systems, Saudi capital, and Pakistani technical blueprints to create a new center of gravity that is entirely independent of Western control.
Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx
Uncategorized
Map of Israeli targets goes up in Tehran as tensions simmer ahead of Netanyahu’s White House visit
(JTA) — Iran has erected a map showing Israeli targets for potential strikes in a prominent propaganda spot as another week dawns with uncertainty over whether it will face a U.S. attack.
The map went up over the weekend in Tehran’s Palestine Square, a frequent site for billboards meant to broadcast the Islamic Republic’s bravado when it comes to Israel and the United States. It includes the words “You start, we finish!”
It comes as President Donald Trump continues to weigh military intervention against Iran and as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu plans to visit the White House to press for his demands in Trump’s negotiations with Iran.
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to meet with US President Donald Trump this Wednesday in Washington, and will discuss with him the negotiations with Iran,” Netanyahu’s office said in a statement on Saturday. “The Prime Minister believes any negotiations must include limitations on ballistic missiles and a halting of the support for the Iranian axis.”
A will-he-or-won’t-he air has pervaded for weeks as Trump has considered different strategies for dealing with Iran, which has said it would view both U.S. and Israeli targets as legitimate if the United States strikes to curb its nuclear ambitions, less than a year after the last U.S. attack on Iranian sites, which came during a war between Iran and Israel.
On Friday, Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and Middle East advisor, and Steve Witkoff, his Middle East envoy, met directly with Iran’s foreign minister in Oman. The foreign minister, Abbas Araqchi, said the talks had gotten off to a “good start” but that Iran was willing to negotiate only about the nuclear program, not the missiles that concern Israel.
Trump, too, told reporters that there had been “very good talks” that indicated that Iran was prepared to make more concessions than it had offered in the past. Still, he said, “They know that if they don’t make a deal the consequences are very steep.”
The next day, Kushner and Witkoff also visited a U.S. naval carrier that has been moved to the region as part of what Trump has called an “armada” that would enable U.S. military action in the event that Trump decides it is needed. Netanyahu has moved up his planned White House visit — which will be his fourth since Trump retook office last year — to advocate for Israel’s interests in the negotiations. It was at a previous visit, last April, that Trump disclosed for the first time that the United States had opened direct talks with Iran. Just over two months later, Trump joined Israel’s campaign against Iran with a bombing attack that came a day after he said he had not decided whether to strike.
The post Map of Israeli targets goes up in Tehran as tensions simmer ahead of Netanyahu’s White House visit appeared first on The Forward.