Uncategorized
Can Donald Trump “Fix” Higher Education in the United States?
By HENRY SREBRNIK When protests disrupted campuses nationwide in the United States last year celebrating the Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel, signs and chants demanded “Divest!” and “Cease-fire now!” This fall, much of the protest language has grown darker, echoing language used by Hamas, and declaring “Glory to the resistance!”
Some protesters now refer to them as the “al-Aqsa flood,” the name Hamas uses. “Oct. 7 IS FOREVER” has been spray-painted on walls at colleges. The shift is very apparent at Columbia University in New York, one of the main centres of the protests.
This new messaging has been noticed by Hillel chapters across the country, observed Adam Lehman, president and CEO of Hillel International. “The overall picture on campus,” he said, “has moved from a mass protest movement that embodied a diverse set of goals and rhetoric to this more concentrated and therefore more extreme and radical set of goals, tactics and rhetoric.”
President-elect Donald Trump has promised to crack down on these campus protests, and his allies expect the Department of Education to more aggressively investigate university responses to pro-Palestinian movements.
“If you get me re-elected, we’re going to set that movement back 25 or 30 years,” he told donors last May. Trump called the demonstrators part of a “radical revolution” that he vowed to defeat. He praised the New York Police Department for clearing the campus at Columbia University and said other cities needed to follow suit, saying “it has to be stopped now.”
In an Agenda47 policy video released last July, he asserted that “the time has come to reclaim our once great educational institutions from the radical Left, and we will do that.” Trump promised to axe federal support and accreditation for universities that fail to put an end to “antisemitic propaganda” and deport international students that are involved in violent anti-Israel campus protests. “As soon as they hear that, they’re going to behave.”
At a recent antisemitism event in Washington DC, he pledged to protect Jewish students on American campuses. “Here is what I will do to defeat antisemitism and defend our Jewish citizens in America,” he declared. “My first week back in the Oval Office my Administration will inform every College president that if you do not end antisemitic propaganda they will lose their accreditation and federal support.”
He announced that he “will inform every educational institution in our land that if they permit violence, harassment or threats against Jewish students the schools will be held accountable for violations of the civil rights law.
“It’s very important Jewish Americans must have equal protection under the law and they’re going to get it. At the same time, my Administration will move swiftly to restore safety for Jewish students and Jewish people on American streets.”
When back in the White House, Trump announced that he would direct the Department of Justice to pursue federal civil rights cases against schools that continue to engage in racial discrimination “under the guise of equity” and will advance a measure to have schools that continue these illegal and unjust policies fined up to the entire amount of their endowment.
Citing Trump’s campaign pledge to push for significant reforms, the Stand Columbia Society, which is dedicated to restoring the university’s “excellence,” has identified a handful of ways in which the federal government could pull financial support from Columbia, or any other university. They estimate Columbia could lose out on $3.5 billion in federal funding should they face government retaliation.
The most likely action, according to the group, would be for the government to slow down on issuing new research grants to the university, a move that would require no justification at all. The government could also squeeze the enrollment of international students by curbing issuance of student visas.
Columbia boasts upwards of 13,800 international students. Losing out on the cohort could cost them up to $800 million in tuition money. Neither one of these scenarios requires the administration to take legal action.
Moreover, the government could, additionally, push to withhold all federal funding should it determine that a university had violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. That statute bars recipients of federal funding from discriminating based on race, colour, or national origin. It was later clarified in 2004 by the then-assistant secretary for the Department of Education, Kenneth Marcus, that Title VI also protected the rights of ethnic groups that shared a religious faith, such as Jews.
Given the explosion of antisemitism that erupted on college campuses in the wake of Hamas’s attack, it doesn’t appear it would take much to make the case that Columbia, and a whole host of other universities, violated Title VI.
Columbia, for its part, already faces at least three Title VI lawsuits over campus antisemitism. (Among other major universities, Harvard faces two, and the University of California Los Angeles, University of Pennsylvania, New York University, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology are also on the list.)
“These problems have existed for some time,” a contributing member of Stand Columbia, Alexandra Zubko, who is a Columbia graduate, contends. “This might be the moment that administrators look in the mirror and decide that they can’t let them continue.”
“All we need to do is listen to what President Trump has said during his campaign to understand that this administration will be serious about enforcing anti discrimination laws in ways that could be problematic to those institutions that have been getting a free pass for too long,” Marcus has said.
With Trump promising to make higher education “great again” once he returns to office this coming January, American universities will face increasing pressure to comply with his administration, if they don’t want to lose billions in federal support.
Henry Srebrnik is a professor of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island.
Uncategorized
Does Israel Hater Hasan Piker Have More Chutzpah Than American Jews?
Hasan Piker. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Any article about Hasan Piker should start by explaining that he said “America deserved 9/11,” according to Congressman Ritchie Torres (D-NY). It should then say that Piker referred to Ultra-Orthodox Jews as “inbred.”
Piker is one of the most popular streamers on Twitch and just did a major interview with a Jewish outlet, speaking with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency’s Andrew Lapin.
Lapin’s article left it up to the reader to keep score, as good articles do. It’s worth a read.
Hasan Piker is a major force in pushing Democrats to turn against Israel. He is calculating. He knows that people care about status and charisma. They care about looking smart, not actually being intelligent.
Piker is physically attractive, and has been the subject of glowing articles in outlets like People and The New York Times.
So why did Piker pick this time to give an interview to a Jewish media outlet? Because he sees he has the backing of influential people to downplay his evil. He knows that politics is about power, and he has more chutzpah than many American Jews do — he’ll go to a Jewish outlet, and claim to support Jews.
He can go to Yale and other colleges like he is someone to be admired and get applause. According to Congressman Torres, in addition to supporting terrorist groups like Hezbollah and championing “resistance” against Israel, “Piker has even gone as far as to incite violence, telling his followers to ‘kill’ and ‘murder’ people ‘in the streets’ and ‘let the streets soak in their red-capitalist blood.’”
In an Opinion article for The Forward, Emily Tamkin writes: “If pushing back against antisemitism is the top priority for our community, I suspect that writing Piker off as an antisemite with whom engagement simply can’t be countenanced will do more harm than good.”
She says that his statements and attitudes are different than Nick Fuentes, and that “this distinction matters. Fuentes’ antisemitism is so extreme and all-encompassing that his fans and followers will never be allies to American Jews. There is little evidence to believe the same is true for Piker. To successfully fight antisemitism, American Jews need a broad base of allies. In that context, Piker’s audience — including nearly 3 million followers on the streaming platform Twitch — is one that it would be a mistake for us to wholly write off.”
While I don’t know if it’s a good use of time to worry if Fuentes or Piker is worse, it is important to note that Fuentes will not be joining any major candidates on the political stage, while Piker will. I also would not be surprised if Piker eventually decides to run for office himself.
Many Democrats like Torres and Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) realize how dangerous and extreme Piker is. But many more Democrats are ready to embrace him.
Piker is anti-American — and also obviously hates Israel.
A failure to protest the normalization of Piker into mainstream politics signifies that Jews are not only okay with being America’s punching bag, but we prefer the bully sit next to us at the table, so we can tell ourselves we are cool. Ezra Klein is a disgrace to try to give Piker a positive profile — as are many other progressives of all stripes (Jewish and non-Jewish alike). We are way past mental gymnastics. We are at the point where fools have broken the balance beam.
Piker has calculated that many Jews are stupid, afraid, or don’t have the chutzpah to protest him, because so many are like Thomas Friedman and will do anything to stay relevant. The sad thing is that Piker may be right.
The author is a writer based in New York.
Uncategorized
What Has the War Against Iran Revealed About the Status of Countries Around the World?
United Kingdom’s Ambassador to the United Nations Barbara Woodward, accompanied by other E3 members German Ambassador Ricklef Beutin and Deputy French Ambassador Jay Dharmadhikari, speaks to members of the press about Iran and nuclear weapons outside the UN Security Council chamber at UN Headquarters in New York City, US, Aug. 29, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Angelina Katsanis
The Epic Fury/Roaring Lion War cast a spotlight on the power index of many countries and the global and regional balance of power. For the purposes of this paper, a country’s power is defined as its security and economic posture. A country may have additional supporting strengths (once called “soft”), such as diplomacy, influence, and internal resilience. For the weaker player, such strengths provide power, but their effectiveness is limited. Ultimately, they are embodied in two main ones: strategic-security posture and economic dominance.
There is a gap between a country’s self-perception and its actual power, as Russia learned after its decision to invade Ukraine. This paper assesses “objective” power rather than a country’s self-perception.
One country in the world today is considerably more powerful than all others: the United States. There are weak countries in the world. In fact, out of about 200 countries, a significant portion of them are either weak or have small yet sufficient power relative to their surroundings. A new member of the latter club is Spain, which was once a global empire but which is now weak in terms of both security and economy.
The other countries rest on a continuum. They can be divided into two types: those that strive for power and those that flee from weakness. The Epic Fury War held up a mirror to the global and regional arena, allowing for a recalibration of the position of various countries on the continuum.
There are several reasons why Epic Fury is a better indicator of countries’ strength than the war in Ukraine or the situation in the China Sea:
- It is the first global war crisis during the presidency of Donald Trump, who has placed the issue of power at the center of his strategy;
- it transformed from a regional crisis into a global one due to the energy issue and the supply chain challenges, which have intensified in recent years, especially since the Covid-19 pandemic; and
- it puts key geostrategic arenas to the test, such as Russia-Europe, India-Pakistan, and, in the Pacific, from China to Australia.
Estimating change in the power index of key countries
The description below is intended to provide initial directions for the professional and academic discourse on the issue.
Iran: The Islamic Republic has returned to fleeing from weakness. In the first two decades of its existence, the regime fled from weakness, with the trauma of the Iran-Iraq War playing a central role. However, in the last two decades, it changed course and moved toward striving for power. The Iranians decided that security power was more important than economic, and were willing to pay the painful price of sanctions in exchange for it. The main milestones of this shift seem to have been the regime’s success in suppressing the “Green Movement” protest in 2009; the absence of restrictions on its behavior in the missile field and in the regional arena in the JCPOA in 2015; its ability to supply advanced missile capabilities to proxies; and the victories of its axis in aiding the Assad regime in Syria and in the Houthis’ fight against the Saudis and the UAE. Unlike Qassem Soleimani, who strove for regional power in a calculated manner while managing risk, his successors were less rigorous, as evidenced by their inability to control Hamas on October 7. The current war, even if the Islamic regime does not yet fully understand it as such, is a severe blow to its striving after power. During the process of internalizing the results of the war, the regime will likely grasp that it has to return to the approach of fleeing from weakness.
United States: The US has strengthened its pursuit of power. Epic Fury was a purposeful display of the Americans’ absolute military superiority, especially as it was supported by an ally who is a “running horse,” not a “lazy donkey.” It experienced a slight backlash in the area of economic power, because it is still internally sensitive to energy price fluctuations, but this negative is insignificant relative to its achievements.
China and the Pacific: The Chinese have come out ahead in their pursuit of power. On the one hand, an ostensible ally of Beijing has been severely damaged and isolated. But on the economic level, through the strength it has built in recent years in the field of supply chains, China has demonstrated clear superiority over its Japanese, South Korean and Australian neighbors. On the military side, what happened in the Persian Gulf hardly whet the world’s appetite for further conflict in the China Sea, which strengthens China’s bargaining power.
Russia and Europe: The Russian balance sheet for the pursuit of power, especially vis-à-vis Europe, is positive. In economic terms, the war boosted its ability to profit from energy sales and balance the economic difficulties resulting from the long war and sanctions. In the security sphere, Europe’s weakness strengthens Russian power. Like Russia, Ukraine – a country that is by definition fleeing from weakness, especially in the current war – also managed to strengthen its position in the form of security and economic gains. On the other hand, Europe, fleeing from weakness, suffered another blow to its security power: the practical disintegration of the NATO alliance and the distancing from Europe of the United States, NATO’s critical component.
India and Pakistan: India’s quest for power has been negatively affected. Pakistan succeeded – in a process that has been going on for more than a year – in positioning itself as an asset to the United States, but was exposed for its weakness as a military partner of Saudi Arabia. However, this development should be analyzed more in the context of India, since the rapprochement between the United States and Pakistan is an American challenge to the independent strategy that India is pursuing, among other areas, in the Russian context. In addition, the war revealed weaknesses in the Indian supply chain. These developments reflect the fact that India still faces significant challenges in its quest for global power.
Germany, Great Britain and France: Here we see a reversal of roles. Germany is the one striving after power, while Britain and France, which, in recent decades, have exercised security power in various arenas, have been revealed as unable to exert power, mainly for internal reasons. They are now deep along the continuum among those fleeing from weakness, while Germany appears to have passed through another stage in its complex return to being a security power.
Saudi Arabia and the Gulf: Epic Fury posed a challenge to the Saudi approach of striving for power and fleeing from the weakness of the other Gulf countries. For decades, Saudi Arabia positioned itself as the key regional player striving for power through its enormous economic capabilities. The current de facto ruler, Muhammad bin Salman, attempted to regulate this effort through Vision 2030. In this pursuit, Saudi Arabia prioritized economic power over security power, and this resulted in painful military losses to the Houthis over the past decade. The Iranian decision to militarily attack the Gulf states and oil exports as a central strategic approach (albeit with no choice) represented a security challenge to the Gulf states’ economic power. Saudi Arabia will now have to reexamine whether it can continue to strive for power or must shift to the more realistic approach of fleeing from weakness.
In the other Gulf states, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, and Kuwait, the situation is even clearer. Their basic strategy is to flee from weakness. The war proved to them that they need to improve their capabilities, mainly in the security field and in alternatives to oil and gas flows.
Turkey‘s approach also retreated somewhat as a result of the war. It has shifted from a country that strives more and more after power to one that flees from weakness.
Israel: Epic Fury/Roaring Lion constituted a significant achievement in Israel’s pursuit of power – with an asterisk.
David Ben-Gurion’s national security strategy was designed as a flight from inherent weakness. It created a durable force with five components: a qualitative conventional military advantage, an image of nuclear deterrence, special relations with a superpower, economic and technological superiority, and national resilience.
Over a long process, Israel’s approach transformed from a flight from weakness to the pursuit of power. A number of key events can be highlighted: the Six-Day War, which confirmed Israel’s military power in the region and ultimately led to the peace agreement with Egypt; the leap to a hi-tech, free-market economy that manifested from 1992; and the process, resulting from the shock of the October 7, 2023 attack, of releasing itself from the constraints it had placed upon itself on its use of military force. That unshackling manifested in the operation in Khan Yunis in early 2024, the beeper operation and elimination of Nasrallah at the end of that year, and Operation Rising Lion in 2025. The State of Israel today is, as a result of the current war, a country with military and economic power much greater than its objective geo-political posture. However, when we look forward, we see that its position is unbalanced. Israel must re-strengthen the other elements of its power (see Perspective Paper No. 2347, June 3, 2025): an advanced, resilient society and economy, with improved long-term positioning of its relations with the United States and other powers.
Col. (res.) Shay Shabtai is a senior researcher at the BESA Center and an expert in national security, strategic planning, and strategic communication. He is a cyber security strategist and a consultant to leading companies in Israel. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
Uncategorized
Shocking: How Palestinian Propaganda Mirrors Language Directly From the Nazis
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, meets with Adolf Hitler in 1941. Photo: German Federal Archives via Wikimedia Commons.
How similar are narratives presented in Palestinian society, and the words spewed by the Nazis? Read for yourself below and decide:
Hitler:
“The Jews are the eternal archenemy of the human race. They manipulate, corrupt, and destroy societies.”[Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chap. 11]
Palestinian Writers’ Union General Secretariat member Talal Abu Afifa:
“The Jews, wherever they settle, they try to take control of the country’s economy and wealth… They did this not just in Britain, but in most of the European states…”
Official PA TV host: “Indeed, wherever they arrived, destruction followed.”
[Official PA TV, In Memory, Nov. 2, 2024]
Hitler:
“The Jews … are a race of parasites… systematically undermining the fabric of societies”[Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chap. 10]
PA TV religious lesson:
Palestinian researcher Muhammad Al-Yahya: “Jews are by nature arrogant, do not accept the other… Their [Jewish] thinking is based on racism that caused them to be hated everywhere. The Zionist thinking is based on them being ‘God’s chosen people.’ [as written] In the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”[Official PA TV, Returning, Jan. 17, 2023 and Feb. 27, 2023, May 14, 2023]
Hitler:
“If the Jew, with the help of his Marxist creed, is victorious over the peoples of this world, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity”[Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chap.11]
Abbas’ advisor, Mahmoud Al-Habbash:
“The occupation (i.e., Israel) is the cause of all evils… of all crises and disasters that everyone … even possibly the whole world, experiences.”[PA leader Mahmoud Abbas’ Advisor on Religious Affairs and Islamic Relations Mahmoud Al-Habbash, YouTube channel, Jan. 19, 2025]
Hitler:
“The Jewish people, by virtue of their innate characteristics, were driven to world domination.”[Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chap. 11]
PA Daily:
“They [Jews] want to subjugate the entire world”[Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Dec. 15, 2024]
Hitler:
“The danger represented by the Jews today finds expression in the undeniable dislike of them felt by a large section of our people.”[Letter from Hitler to Adolf Gimlich, 1919]
Fatah leader Tayseer Nasrallah:
“What happened in the Netherlands [attack on Jewish sports fans] is the best proof that the world is sick of the Jews.”TV host: “Right.”
[Official PA TV, Nov. 10, 2024]
Hitler:
“The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.”[Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chap. 11]
Mahmoud Abbas’ Advisor Mahmoud Al-Habbash:
“Satan does not have to be in the form of a demon, hidden, he can also be in your form, but he is Satan. In the form of man, but he is Satan. And they (i.e., Satan-Jews) are still fighting us until they turn us back from our religion.”
[Official PA TV, July 7, 2023]
Hitler:
“The Jew’s existence is a crime against humanity, and the only solution is his removal from our midst.”[Mein Kampf, Vol. 2, Chap. 13]
PA Ministry of Religious Affairs:
“The Hour [of Resurrection] will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, and the rock or a tree will say: ‘Muslim, O servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him’”
[PA Ministry of Religious Affairs, Facebook page, Oct. 18, 2023]
Facebook page of the PA Ministry of Religious Affairs, Oct. 18, 2023
Hitler:
“The result will not be the … victory of Jewry but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.”[Hitler to Reichstag, January 30, 1939]
PA Shari’ah Judge Abdallah Harb: “Allah, strike the aggressive Jews, count them and kill them one by one, and do not leave even one.”
[Official PA TV Live, July 5, 2024]
Hitler:
“I defend myself against the Jew.”[Mein Kampf, 1,2]
PA leader Mahmoud Abbas:
“They said that Hitler killed the Jews because they were Jews, and Europe hates the Jews because they are Jews. No!… They fought [the Jews] because of their social role…“Hitler … fought the Jews because they worked based on usury and money. In other words, they caused ruin in his opinion, and therefore he hated them”
[Official PA TV, August 24, 2023]
The author is the Founder and Director of Palestinian Media Watch, where a version of this article first appeared.