Herzog to award ‘Presidential Medal of Honor’ to Lauder, Hoenlein, others
Intro
The president chose these leaders for their unwavering commitment to Israel and their exceptional support of the Jewish people.
text
President Isaac Herzog announced on Monday the award of the Israeli Presidential Medal of Honor to eight Jewish and non-Jewish leaders from around the world, in recognition of their long-standing contributions to the State of Israel and the Jewish people.
Against the background of the ongoing war, the president chose these leaders for their unwavering commitment to Israel and their exceptional support of the Jewish people over decades of endeavors, particularly since the atrocities of Oct. 7, 2023.
The Israeli Presidential Medal of Honor is awarded by the president to those who through their talents, service or any other means, have made an outstanding contribution to the State of Israel or to humanity.
This medal was an initiative of Israel's ninth president, the late Shimon Peres, and was first awarded in 2012.
Upon taking office, Herzog appointed an advisory committee, chaired by retired Supreme Court Justice Professor Yoram Danziger, to recommend candidates for the honor.
Since then, the president has awarded the medal to prominent figures in Israel and worldwide, including heads of state, key social figures from all sectors of Israeli society, and global and Jewish leaders.
This will be the first time the medals are collectively awarded to a group of Jewish and non-Jewish leaders from abroad, who have contributed to Israel and the Jewish people both personally and through institutions around the world—a category that will also be included in future years.
The recipients, as announced by the president, are:
• Ronald S. Lauder (USA) • Maurice Lévy (France) • Malcolm Hoenlein (USA) • Julie Platt (USA) • Sir Frank Lowy (Australia and Israel) • Sir Trevor Chinn (U.K.) • Brigitte Zypries (Germany) • Mark Leibler (Australia)
The president personally informed each recipient of their selection.
In his conversations with the honorees, Herzog said:
“The past year, the most difficult since the founding of the state, tested our resilience as a nation and as the Jewish people; it showcased the diverse and beautiful face of Israeli society and proved, as we have always known and believed, that all of Israel is responsible for one another, that the Jewish communities worldwide and the State of Israel share a common destiny, and that we have great friends and supporters in the world who fight alongside us against antisemitism, defend Israel’s name in the media, and have long fought for Israel’s place among the nations.
"Your work and dedication embody this great bond, and the Jewish people and the State of Israel will remain deeply grateful for all that you have done and continue to do,” he said.
Details of the medal recipients:
• Ronald S. Lauder (USA) – President of the World Jewish Congress—among the most significant Jewish organizations in the world—prominent Jewish leader and philanthropist, and generous contributor to numerous causes in Israel and the Jewish world, Lauder has for decades made significant contributions to strengthening Jewish communities globally and combating antisemitism.
Through his support for educational initiatives especially, and the fight against antisemitic and anti-Israel campaigns, he has greatly impacted diplomacy, education and culture, influencing generations of Jewish youth worldwide.
• Maurice Lévy (France)—Born in Morocco, Lévy has fostered enduring business, social and political ties between France and Israel. He is known for his steadfast support for Israel and for combating antisemitism across Europe. Lévy ensured Israel’s representation in prestigious global platforms and other international forums. He has been honored as a Commandeur of the French Légion d’Honneur and Grand Officier of the Ordre National du Mérite.
• Malcolm Hoenlein (USA)—Hoenlein served for decades as the leading figure of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, representing more than 50 organizations across the U.S. He has been a key figure in strengthening U.S.-Israel relations, advocating for Israel's security and Jewish unity, and garnering support for Israel among global leaders and in U.S. politics and government.
• Julie Platt (USA)—Platt currently serves as chair of the Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA), leading the largest Jewish community outside of Israel. She has worked tirelessly to significantly strengthen the ties between the North American Jewish community and the State of Israel, with a strong focus on fostering Jewish identity among Jewish children and youth in the U.S.
She has long supported Israel and the Jewish community across the U.S. and the world, actively defending Israel’s name post-Oct. 7, in various forums, including as chair of the Board of Trustees at the University of Pennsylvania, advocating for the safety of Jewish students and for Israel’s right to self-defense.
• Sir Frank Lowy (Australia and Israel)—A Holocaust survivor who was born in Czechoslovakia and who fought in Israel’s War of Independence in 1948, Lowy is a leading philanthropist who has greatly impacted the ties between Israel and Australia, supported the Jewish community in Australia and promoted the well-being of Israeli society in the fields of health, education and social welfare especially. His influence is also evident in supporting vital Israeli initiatives, most recently the National Library in Jerusalem.
• Sir Trevor Chinn (UK)—Chinn has for many decades been one of the most prominent leaders of British Jewry. He has served among other roles as chairman of the Joint Israel Appeal (now the UJIA) and founder of the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM). He has worked tirelessly to strengthen Israel-U.K. relations and support Jewish communities in both countries, ensuring their security and defending Israel's name within the political, diplomatic and public spheres in the U.K.
• Brigitte Zypries (Germany)—Zypries, a former German minister of economic affairs and justice, has long been an important political figure and president of the Israel-Germany Association. She has greatly contributed to strengthening ties between Germany and Israel, and between Israel and Europe, mainly through legal, economic and cultural cooperation. She has worked to solidify Israel’s status in Europe and to defend its reputation in the face of antisemitism and anti-Israel boycotts.
• Mark Leibler (Australia)—Leibler is a leading attorney and Jewish community leader in Australia who has worked extensively for human rights, Israel and the Jewish community in Australia. For decades, he has been a central figure on the Board of Governors of the Jewish Agency for Israel and Keren Hayesod, working to promote the Australia-Israel friendship, combat antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiments, defend Israel’s reputation and fight against boycotts.
StopAntisemitism’s X account shared a disturbing video on May 4 from the Barstool Sansom Street bar in Philadelphia. The footage, seemingly a screen recording of an Instagram story, showed a sign “F*** the Jews” before the camera unsteadily turned to a crowd of onlookers. Some reacted with visible shock. Others laughed. One person remarked, “crazy.” At least one voice chillingly echoed the sentiment: “F*** ’em.”
This vile incident and the troubling response that followed offer critical insight into the current state of antisemitism in America.
StopAntisemitism tagged Barstool CEO Dave Portnoy in its post. Within two hours, Portnoy responded with a video on X expressing anger and disbelief. He proposed what appeared to be a constructive solution: Offering the alleged perpetrators an educational trip to Auschwitz to confront the historical reality and horrors of antisemitism.
That, however, was not the end of the story.
The fallout was immediate. Two Barstool employees connected to the incident were fired, and Temple University suspended student Mo Khan, who had posted the original video.
Portnoy later stated on X that Khan had recanted an earlier admission of involvement, instead claiming to be merely a “citizen journalist.” As a result, Portnoy rescinded his Auschwitz offer. While we can’t know what was said in private, Khan made his perspective public on X and a fundraising platform.
On his fundraising page, Khan cast himself as “the real victim.” He dismissed the phrase “F*** the Jews” as three words on a bar sign, and cited a series of defensive claims: “I’m a 21-year-old college kid. I’m not a public figure,” adding that it was merely an “edgy joke.” He also lamented being a casualty of “cancel culture.”
More troubling, however, was Khan’s attempt to rationalize the antisemitic slur itself. He argued that the sign was “provocative because it reminds people of the acts of injustice israel [sic] is perpetrating around the world.”
He accused Portnoy and the wider Jewish community of misplaced outrage, writing: “Frankly, they’re more concerned about destroying my life than they are with stopping a genocide that is blowing up children. That sign didn’t kill any Jews—nor did my reporting of it—but their support of Israel kills 1000s of people every single day.”
In facing public backlash, Khan invoked what sociologist David Hirsh has termed the “Livingstone Formulation,” a rhetorical tactic in which accusations of antisemitism are dismissed as efforts to silence criticism of Israel. Casting himself as a victim of censorship, Khan claimed that the outrage over his actions was an attempt to suppress his political views.
Predictably, Khan found supporters among far-right antisemites such as Nick Fuentes, Lucas Gage and Stew Peters, the latter of whom hosted an “emergency press conference” with Khan, railing against so-called “Jewish supremacy.”
The hatred extended to Khan’s fundraising page. While many of the posts have since been deleted, either by Khan or the platform, comments—ranging from Holocaust denial to conspiracy theories and religious slurs—revealed how the far-right, far-left, Islamist and Christian fundamentalist antisemites have all found common cause with Khan, uniting around a shared hatred of the Jewish people.
This was not a murky or ambiguous episode. It was blatant hatred. Yet even in the face of that sign, we saw denial, deflection and disturbing attempts at justification. It’s all part of a broader trend. As antisemitism becomes more normalized, particularly among younger generations, as poll after poll has shown, those who promote it increasingly shield themselves by claiming they are merely criticizing Israel.
If someone can excuse “F*** the Jews” as a political message about Israel, then anything Jewish—people, institutions, symbols—becomes fair game. This is not criticism. This is hate. If we allow such rhetoric to go unchallenged, and if society is slowly desensitized to the language of antisemitism, the consequences will be dire.
There must be no confusion here. No equivocation. No shielding bigotry in freedom of speech. This hate must be named, confronted and eradicated—not only to protect Jews, but to safeguard any society that refuses to let hatred define its future.
The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations announced on May 15 that the umbrella group’s membership committee and its members voted unanimously to admit the Iranian American Jewish Federation as its 50th member.
The federation “has long stood at the heart of Iranian Jewish life in America, and we look forward to the energy and outlook they will bring to our shared mission,” said Harriet Schleifer, the conference’s chair.
“The Iranian American Jewish community transformed exile and adversity into a remarkable chapter of American Jewish life,” stated William Daroff, CEO of the conference.
“Through IAJF, they proudly preserve their heritage and champion a steadfast commitment to Israel,” he said. “By joining the Conference of Presidents, they bring valuable perspective and strengthen our shared pursuit of Jewish unity and purpose in these challenging times.”
Shahram Yaghoubzadeh, chair of the federation’s board in New York, said the “milestone is a testament to the strength, commitment and enduring contributions of the Iranian-American Jewish community to Jewish life in the United States, Israel and beyond.”
The conference stated that its newest member has raised more than $100 million in the past two decades to support more than 230 groups in Israel and the United States, including in the areas of healthcare, education, supporting Israeli soldiers, social services and aid for terror victims.
The Qatar-based Al Jazeera Media Institute recently hosted a webinar for journalists about detecting media bias to coincide with “Press Freedom Day.” One big problem: Muhammad Khamaiseh, the Al Jazeera instructor who specializes in “journalism ethics,” has a record of not only media bias but of hatred and discrimination. That’s quite an ethical dilemma, an area in which he claims to be an expert. It’s also a dilemma for Al Jazeera, the organization for which he frequently acts as a public standard bearer.
Khamaiseh holds a master’s degree in media and cultural studies, is an editor at the Department of Media Initiatives at the Al Jazeera Media Institute, is a member of the Al Jazeera Journalism Review’s editorial team, and oversees its research fellowship program. But despite his impressive resume, Khamaiseh has used social media to spread hate against Jews instead of using it to gather information for stories.
“Jews have been known for centuries to be cunning thinkers, and currently, the entire global economic system is under their control,” he posted, in Arabic, on his X account in August 2018, six months after he started working at Al Jazeera, amplifying a hateful canard against an entire faith population.
Back in July 2014, at the height of an expanded military confrontation between Israel and Hamas, Khamaiseh expressed disturbing support for Hamas’s al-Qassam Brigades when he cruelly mocked the suffering of Jews, laughing—actually typing out the sound of laughter—at the idea of them being left orphaned. As he wrote in Arabic, “The summer schedule of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades … by God, they are not slacking off on going after the Jews, not even allowing them to sleep in the morning as they would like. Hahahaha.”
Izz ad-Din al-Qassam was a Muslim cleric who formed an early Islamist group that terrorized and murdered Jews in Mandatory Palestine in the 1930s. The brigades that led the Hamas-led terrorist attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023—in which some 1,200 people from more than 40 nationalities were killed and 251 people were taken hostage—are named after him.
Khamaiseh is the author of the Al Jazeera Media Institute’s “A Guide to Avoiding Discrimination and Hate Speech in the Media.” The guide includes chapters such as “How do discrimination and hate speech happen in the media?” “Anti-discrimination and hate speech laws as a means of suppressing freedom of expression,” “Objective and ethical coverage to avoid discrimination and hate speech,” and the ironically titled chapter “Important questions to ask yourself.”
Khamaiseh advises journalists on legal ramifications of discrimination to avoid singling out people based on race, color, ancestry or ethnicity “in a way that prejudices their enjoyment of or recognition of their human rights.” Apparently seeing himself as immune from his own purported standards, he writes, “In a media context, discrimination can occur through negative framing of individuals or groups based on their identity and with the aim of inciting hatred or negative feeling against them.”
In the guidebook, parts of which appear in other sections of the Al Jazeera Media Institute’s website, Khamaiseh writes that the resource “can be thought of as a roadmap that will help journalists to isolate their pieces from their own personal beliefs and biases,” “provide them with tools to deal with the moral dilemmas that confront them,” and “familiarize them with the boundaries between legally acceptable journalism and hate speech and discrimination as prohibited by international law.”
Khamaiseh, who counsels his students to “treat our audiences with due respect,” has celebrated Hamas’s military arm when it killed Jews, whom he refers to as Zionists. Lauding murder, in an Arabic post on X (then Twitter), he said, “God is great and glory belongs to God. Al Qassam Brigades announces the killing of six Zionists, as one martyr from the Brigades was killed during a landing operation.”
These were not isolated posts but part of a pattern of praising Hamas. In another instance, referring to those who engage in violent jihad, he cheered in an Arabic post, “A salute of reverence to the steadfast fighters standing against the brutal Zionist enemy in Hebron … #Hamas_Will_Not_Kneel.” Elsewhere, he posted in Arabic, “This is why we love Hamas,” ending his comment with a smiley face.
There is strong evidence that at least six Gaza-based Al Jazeera journalists reportedly joined Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in carrying out the Oct. 7 atrocities in southern Israel, allegations the network denies. Some of the evidence includes the reporter-operatives’ own footage of participating in the attack.
Al Jazeera and its affiliates’ royal Qatari funders have invested heavily in positioning the Al Jazeera web of platforms as a tech-savvy ecosystem, seeking to appeal to Western audiences. Tech-savvy as it may be, Al Jazeera is the Qatari government’s soft-power tool to amplify and promote the ideologies of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood’s goal is to create an Islamic state where Islamic law, or Sharia, governs society.
Qatar’s strict media laws prohibit “any criticism” of the emir of Qatar, and media outlets in the wealthy emirate require government approval before reporting on Qatar’s armed forces, its banks and certain judicial proceedings.
Tempting as it may be to accept the emirate’s financial largesse, global media entities that take funds from Qatari government patrons, including, but not limited to, through the Al Jazeera Media Institute and other Al Jazeera platforms, should be held accountable for their ethically and journalistically problematic deals.
It is noteworthy that after additional public revelations about Al Jazeera’s relationship with Hamas following the Oct. 7 attacks, Northwestern University cut ties to Al Jazeera, which had joint programs in the Illinois university’s Doha campus. Northwestern has received more than $500 million in contracts from Qatar since 2007, according to U.S. Department of Education data.
In recent weeks, thousands of Gazans protested against not only Hamas’s brutal rule of Gaza but also against Al Jazeera itself as Hamas’s mouthpiece, chanting “barra, barra, barra, Al Jazeera.” An Arabic word barra means “out.” The channel’s own coverage did not reflect the tagline on the bottom of the institute’s page that claims, “You can count on Al Jazeera for truth and transparency.” Instead, it reportedly hoisted anti-Israel signs among the crowd, filmed it and disingenuously portrayed the protesters’ actual anger at the network as anger at Israel.
In another booklet called “Do Muslims scare you: A guide for journalists,” for which he served as editor, Khamaiseh advises reporters to “connect Islamophobia with antisemitism and other forms of racism.” The guide concludes with a “checklist” of “red flags” that reporters should use to check against their own biases. One of the questions they need to ask, his guide says, is, “Am I repeating a libel or a slander against [people] if my source is making vicious claims or remarks?”
Khamaiseh would do well to check his own words for these red flags. And those journalists and media outlets that collaborate with Al Jazeera Media Institute should check the myriad red flags associated with their collaboration.
The entire second Trump administration has proven, thus far, to be an advertisement for yoga. President Donald Trump throws out a bombshell idea—annexing Canada, invading Panama, emptying Gaza, tariffs on imported air, firing a billion federal workers, expelling American citizens—and everyone gets hives, especially the stock market.
Then you find out that a lot of countries are open to trade talks; that the Abraham Accords countries have some ideas for Gaza; the border is closed, safe and secure; former President Bill Clinton fired far more federal workers than Trump is suggesting; and former President Barack Obama expelled more illegal immigrants than either Trump or Clinton.
The answer is to breathe.
With that in mind, consider the president’s current trip to the Gulf States.
The good news:
No one can be anything other than happy, relieved and grateful for the return of Edan Alexander to his family.
There were Israeli reporters in the room in Riyadh.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS) looked more relieved than anything else.
Trump gave proper credit to the Abraham Accords for radically improving the region in economic, social and security terms.
The president’s overall plan for regional security is a good one. It was discussed with MBS, who shares many of America’s and Israel’s concerns with the enemies of stability and prosperity, primarily Iran.
Trump spelled out steps he would like to see Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa take, including joining the Abraham Accords, removing Palestinian terrorists and all foreign militias, assuming control of ISIS detention centers, and working to prevent the return of ISIS to Syria.
The bad news:
Hostages remain in Gaza.
The acceptance of the Abraham Accords by Saudi Arabia was left dangling. As Trump said, “You’ll do it in your own time, and that’s what I want and that’s what you want, and that’s the way it’s going to be.”
Regional security was discussed with al-Sharaa, whose history is ISIS-adjacent and who is presently attacking minorities in the country he overran.
U.S. sanctions on Syria were lifted before al-Sharaa took any action to address Trump’s concerns.
Will the positive notes win? It is far from clear.
It is worth revisiting Trump’s 2020 “Vision for Peace” in the Middle East, which he announced at the White House during his first term in office with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in attendance. The audience included three Arab ambassadors from countries that had no relations with Israel.
The president was explicit in his view of the region and the role of the Arab states in the decades-long war against Israel. “It is time for the Muslim world to fix the mistake it made in 1948, when it chose to attack instead of to recognize the new state of Israel,” he said at the time. “The Palestinians are the primary pawn in this adventurism, and it is time for this sad chapter in history to end.”
Of Jerusalem, Trump said, “In truth, Jerusalem is liberated. Jerusalem is a safe, open and democratic city.”
He laid conditions on the Palestinians to “meet the challenges of peaceful coexistence.” The Palestinians failed in those fundamental requirements for civilized behavior. They were written off by the administration.
In 2020, Trump was open in his support of Israel’s security. “There will be no incremental risks to the State of Israel. Peace,” he said, “requires compromise, but we will never ask Israel to compromise its security.”
It took nine months for the “Vision for Peace” to morph into the Abraham Accords.
It is too early to decide whether the president’s foray into the region this time around will bear fruit, but the trip has already been subjected to the excesses and warping and fakery by the anti-Trump media, democratic members of Congress and the general American antisemitic and anti-Israel left. Friends of Israel are not immune. There are headlines (happy ones and terrified ones) about how Israel has been abandoned by the administration.
Stop and breathe.
True, Israel is not happy with everything the administration is doing and proposing. It can’t be. But it is also true that Israel has been given broad latitude to prosecute the war in Gaza as it believes is proper, not as the United States deems appropriate. And with U.S. backing assured, U.S.-Israel security cooperation in CENTCOM appears to be excellent. Israel’s Minister for Strategic Affairs, Ron Dermer, appears to have met with Trump and the U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio before the president left on his Mideast trip.
True, al-Sharaa should have his intentions tested before the United States goes all out for him. But the sanctions against Syria were on the Assad regime, and it is understood that Israel has engaged in talks with al-Sharaa as it seeks to protect the Druze in Syria. The question remains: Was the situation better when Iran controlled Syria than it is with Sunni control in coordination with Saudi Arabia, even if that includes Qatar and Turkey?
A near-unanimous U.S. House passed a resolution on Wednesday marking Jewish American Heritage Month by asking elected officials and other leaders to call out antisemitism and to educate the public about the accomplishments of Jewish Americans.
“It is a resolution that highlights the enduring contributions of Jewish Americans to our country,” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), who introduced the first Jewish Heritage Month resolution in December 2005, said on the House floor.
Wasserman Schultz has sponsored the resolution since President George W. Bush proclaimed the first Jewish Heritage Month in 2006.
The month celebrates “the generations of Jewish Americans who were integral parts of the rich mosaic of people and heritages that make up these United States,” Wasserman Schultz said.
The resolution singled out several accomplished Jews, including the inventors Irving Naxon (slow cooker), Sylvan Goldman (shopping cart) and Edwin Land (Polaroid instant camera). It also named Ruth Handler, who founded Mattel and invented the Barbie doll, and Ralph Baer, whose “Brown Box” was a prototype for the first multiplayer, multiprogram video game system, as well as the actress Hedy Lamarr, whose concept of “frequency hopping” made possible such wireless communications technologies as wifi, GPS and bluetooth.
“As Jews, we have a long-standing commitment to tikkun olam, a commitment to repair the world,” Wasserman Schultz said. “We take great pride regarding the impact we have made on so many generations of Americans.”
The vote was 421-1, with just one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) voting no.
Massie was one of the GOP lawmakers who successfully delayed a vote on legislation to extend existing anti-boycott legislation to prevent compliance with boycotts imposed by international governmental organizations like the United Nations.
For the second straight year, the debate took place against a rising tide of Jew-hatred that followed the Hamas-led terror attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. The Anti-Defamation League’s annual audit of Jew-hatred reported a record 9,354 incidents of assault, harassment and vandalism in 2024, the fourth straight year of a new annual high and the most since the audit began 46 years ago.
“This House, elected officials at the state and local level, faith leaders, community leaders and university administrators all have an obligation to confront antisemitism,” Rep. Derek Schmidt (R-Kan.) said during the House floor debate.
But Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who is Jewish, wondered aloud why Jew-hatred wasn’t called out in the case of Ed Martin, whom U.S. President Donald Trump first tried to install as the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. After the Senate balked, Trump named Martin an associate deputy attorney general, which does not require Senate confirmation.
Martin praised one of the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrectionists, whom Trump pardoned and who has backed Nazi ideology and posed as Adolf Hitler, The Washington Post reported. Martin called the man, Timothy Hale-Cusanelli, a friend “slurred and smeared” by allegations of antisemitism.
“We must insist that men like Ed Martin and his antisemitic associates and friends have no place representing the people of the United States in our government,” Raskin said. “We must pay more than lip service to the idea of fighting antisemitism.”
Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.), a newly elected Jewish member of Congress, responded that the House debate was neither the time nor the place to discuss Martin.
“A resolution like this that says that people should care about these issues is not the time for people to go and make partisan potshots about antisemitism,” Fine said on the floor. “Antisemitism doesn’t have a monopoly on either party. Both have it. My side does too. But where we fight together to take it on and not to take shots, we actually begin to solve the problem.”
“If a discussion of antisemitism and the contributions of Jewish Americans is not an appropriate time to talk about antisemitism in the government, I wonder what is,” Raskin countered.
Iran can be both a prosperous and peaceful country, and U.S. President Donald Trump hopes that the Islamic Republic seizes that chance, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Sean Hannity, of Fox News, during an interview on Thursday from the Cornelia Diamond Golf Resort and Spa in Antalya, Turkey.
“Our problem is not with the Iranian people. The Iranian people are a peaceful people, an ancient civilization and culture we admire greatly,” Rubio said. “Our problem is with a clerical regime that is behind every problem in the region: Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, the militias that have conducted attacks out of Iraq and Syria.”
All of those terror groups “track back to the Iranian regime,” Rubio said. “All the instability in Syria tracks back to the Iranian regime. It’s a regime that every day and every Friday chants, ‘death to Israel, death to America.’”
“We have to believe them when they say that,” he said.
The Iranian regime must never get nuclear weapons, according to Rubio. “The end decision lies in the hands of one person, and that’s the supreme leader in Iran, and I hope he chooses the path of peace and prosperity, not a destructive path,” the secretary said. “We’ll see how that plays out.”
Hannity asked Rubio about published reports that the Iranian regime has enriched uranium to “quite a high” level, and that “if you’re at 60% enrichment, it is not a stretch to get to weapons-grade enrichment at 80%, 90%.”
“When you say 60, it’s misleading when people hear that number because they think 60% enrichment and 90% is what you need for a weapon,” Rubio said. “Actually, 90% of the work it takes to get to weapons-grade enrichment is getting to 60. Once you’re at 60, you’re 90% of the way there. You are, in essence, a threshold nuclear weapon state, which is what Iran basically has become.”
“If they decided to do so, they could do so very quickly,” Rubio said. “If they stockpile enough of that 60% enriched, they could very quickly turn it into 90 and weaponize it.”
That ability to weaponize quickly is “why Israel feels urgency about it, and that’s why we feel urgency about it,” Rubio said. “But not just us. Throughout the Gulf region, no country in the region wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”
The patriotic tenor surrounding this week’s arrival of several dozen Afrikaners to the United States was tempered by a cohort of liberals who predictably seized on the moment to criticize the Trump administration for carving out special refugee status for white South Africans while blocking the admission of unvetted migrants from other parts of the globe.
Yet, studies suggest President Donald Trump’s quick success in tightening our nation’s immigration laws sits well with many Americans, who rightly welcome the government’s tough approach to border security.
By shutting out illegal migrants and boosting the vetting process for foreigners who want to come to the United States legally, the Trump administration’s immigration measures protect Americans and preserve the providential Judeo-Christian spirit of our country.
Recent moves to deport and revoke the visas of foreigners whose affinity lies with anti-American and antisemitic terrorist groups, rather than with their host country, reflect sensible and uncomplicated avenues through which Trump is flexing his authority to secure our nation.
While good for America, the administration’s approach to immigration reform represents an essential tool for confronting antisemitism.
The government’s commitment to deporting Jew-hating noncitizen activists, coupled with implementing new regulations that include monitoring the social media habits of immigrants to check for antisemitic activity, are common-sense policies that safeguard the U.S. Jewish community and ensure that America’s character is not reshaped into a nation that accommodates radical anti-Jewish beliefs.
That’s why the recent decision by “mainstream” Jewish groups to publicly criticize Trump’s efforts to strip antisemitic noncitizens like Syria-born Columbia University grad and left-wing darling Mahmoud Khalil of their legal resident status damages the very interests they were tasked to uphold.
Along with a coterie of mostly non-Orthodox Jewish clergy signing onto an April letter claiming that Trump’s detention of specific students is “capitalizing on Jewish fear to justify oppressive policies,” prominent groups, such as the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee and Hillel International, are adopting similar squeamish positions.
AJC’s action plan for university administrators on confronting antisemitism resembles a Democratic Party playbook that encourages school leaders to examine “the interlocking histories of various hatreds, including antisemitism, anti-Black racism, homophobia and Islamophobia.”
These institutions’ qualifying statements of Jewish solidarity with calls of concern for Jew-hating immigrants are not peddling tolerance; They’re projecting stupidity.
Douglas Murray, U.K.-born senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and Canadian professor Gad Saad have been instrumental in exposing the West to the dangers associated with uncontrolled immigration.
In Western Europe and Canada, antisemitic attacks against Jews have risen in tandem with a massive influx of immigrants from mainly majority Muslim nations.
Increasingly, these new arrivals still harbor prejudices from home and resist integrating into their host country’s cultural and social fabric.
For a community that prides itself on values wedded to acceptance, conveying disapproval over current immigration levels and discussing the ideological leanings of new arrivals to the United States discomfits many Jewish Americans.
With that said, averting the same fate as European Jewry requires sharpening our agenda and adapting to modern-day realities.
An ADL report found that last year was the highest number on record for antisemitic incidents in the United States since the group began tabulating 46 years ago.
According to the study, in 2024, anti-Jewish hate crimes increased by “344 percent” from the previous five years and jumped a staggering “893 percent” over the last 10 years.
While under-discussed among liberal-leaning elites, the rise in violence and harassment against American Jews tracks with the U.S. foreign-born population reaching record highs.
In March, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) noted that the government’s latest population survey found that illegal and legal immigrants comprise almost 16% of the total U.S. population, the highest in history, with the “8.3 million increase in the last four years being larger than the growth of the preceding 12 years.”
Moreover, American universities at the epicenter of antisemitic unrest, such as Columbia University, boast a high share of foreign students.
As a deeply patriotic American who arrived in the United States as a young girl, I understand that our country would not be the vibrant and prosperous democracy it is today without robust immigration.
Still, an increasing swath of foreigners seeking the privilege of immigrating to the United States do not share Americans’ adherence to religious liberty and civic dialogue.
The pro-Hamas protests unfolding across the country confirm that protectionist policies are required to stop unsavory actors with bad intentions from entering our shores.
The Trump administration’s restrained approach to immigration is directly tied to successfully confronting today’s antisemitic threats and ultimately advances a safe and secure future for all citizens, especially Jewish Americans.
What exactly is President Donald Trump trying to accomplish in the Middle East? That’s not an easy question for either his supporters or his detractors to answer after a tour that emphasized closer relations with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as well as a renewal of relations with Syria, and a major policy speech that laid out American goals in the region.
The address emphasized Trump’s belief in expanding trade and rejection of nation-building, in addition to attempts to impose American values on the region. It was an important and long-overdue acknowledgement of the need for the United States to reject the actions of the Obama and Biden administrations, which emphasized appeasement of Iran and downgrading of relations with allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia, as well as the crusade for imposing democracy on the region embraced by the George W. Bush administration. In its place, Trump set forth a rational and realistic agenda of promoting security through strength and commerce, with a push for the Arab and Muslim world to join the Abraham Accords and normalize relations with Israel.
But the speech wasn’t the focus of most of the commentary. Instead, the headlines were about the airplane for future use as Air Force One, given to him by the rulers of Qatar. And if that blatant instance of trying to buy influence wasn’t enough, Doha also sealed a deal with the Trump real estate company to build a golf resort in the desert emirate.
This understandably raised the hackles of conservative pro-Israel Trump backers and the usual chorus of Trump haters in the mainstream corporate media and political opponents. Whether coming from the right or the left, critiques of his judgment in accepting this “gift,” coupled with the atrocious timing and dubious judgment of the real estate deal, were entirely well-founded.
A frenemy in Doha
Qatar’s status as a frenemy of the United States is well-established. While it hosts an American military base and often speaks as if it is an American ally, it is also closely aligned with Iran. More than that, it is a primary funder of Hamas, hosts the ideological leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, and spends heavily to spread Islamist and antisemitic ideas in the United States on college campuses and in mosques. Its influence is exactly what the Trump administration is seeking to combat in its essential efforts to force institutions of higher education to stop tolerating and enabling Jew-hatred and anti-American indoctrination. On top of that, it also hosts/runs Al Jazeera, the international outlet that is a primary source of anti-American and anti-Israel propaganda that operates under the guise of a news channel.
That several administrations of both parties have continued this toxic relationship with Doha when they should have all cut off relations with it is bad enough. But for Trump to be championing it personally—and largely because, knowing his vanity, the Qataris are flattering and showering him with presents—is indefensible.
And we didn’t have to wait long to see the fruits of Qatar’s charm offensive.
U.S. President Donald Trump greets Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, Chief of the Amiri Diwan Abdullah bin Mohammed bin Mubarak Al Khulaifi and U.S. Ambassador Timmy Davis at Hamad International Airport in Doha, Qatar, May 14, 2025. Credit: Daniel Torok/White House.
Reasons for concern
During the course of the week, not only did the Qataris help broker a deal to gain the release of 21-year-old Edan Alexander, the last hostage being held by Hamas with American citizenship. Rumors were also flying around the region and in Washington that Doha was successfully nudging the United States and its witless Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, who is already compromised by a financial bailout given him by the Qataris, toward both a broader ceasefire agreement with Hamas and a new nuclear deal with Iran.
A new pact with Hamas—notwithstanding Trump’s demands that the terror group be eradicated and replaced with some sort of American-run Gaza—could allow Qatar’s ally to survive and retain control of the Strip. Negotiations with Iran also seem to be oriented toward allowing it to retain its nuclear program under the dubious notion that the oil-rich nation required it for civilian purposes to produce more energy.
Either prospective agreement would be a disaster for American interests and a deadly threat to Israel’s security.
Even more surprising was the Qatar-Saudi-supported Trump decision to lift sanctions on the new regime running Syria, headed by former ISIS terrorist Ahmed al-Sharaa, whom the president met. The Islamists in Damascus are reportedly also dangling the possibility of their own real estate bribe to Trump. Given that there is no reason to trust that al-Sharaa and his jihadist government will be a stabilizing force or have given up their extremist stands, the U.S. decision to normalize relations with it was, at best, premature.
Add to that list of troubling decisions was Trump’s declaration of a ceasefire between the United States and the Houthis in Yemen, despite the fact that the Iranian-backed terrorists have shown no other signs of giving up its efforts to interdict international shipping in the Red Sea or stop firing missiles and drones at Israel in an effective but harmful effort to aid Hamas.
To make supporters of Israel even more nervous was the obvious absence of Israel on Trump’s itinerary or much sign that he was coordinating or consulting with Jerusalem about any of this.
Does this mean that Trump 2.0 will be as damaging to Israel as his first administration was supportive?
The only honest answer to that question is that we don’t yet know, though given his priorities and basic approach to relations with the nations of the region, there is reason to believe that it could all turn out to the benefit of the interests of the United States and Israel.
U.S. President Donald Trump gives remarks during an official State Dinner at Lusail Palace in Doha, Qatar, May 14, 2025. Credit: Daniel Torok/White House.
A rational policy approach
And that is why Trump’s policy speech deserves as much scrutiny as his unfortunate current dealings with Qatar. It should be understood as a fundamental rejection of his predecessors’ approach to the region, and that (worries about Qatar, Hamas and Iran, nonetheless) is a good thing.
Trump railed against the “neocons” who ran foreign policy under the last Bush administration for sinking the United States in quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan with the aim of, among other things, converting those countries into something resembling Western-style democracies. However well-intentioned that effort was, it turned out to be a fool’s errand, and the president is right to say so.
Equally wrongheaded was the Obama and Biden effort to appease Iran, which was not so much the result of bad bargaining skills but an actual desire for a rapprochement with Tehran. The goal was to embrace its leaders and essentially have the country replace Israel and the Saudis as a key American ally. That was not so much dumb as utter madness.
Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal with Iran enriched and empowered the Islamist regime, allowing it to engage in foreign adventures, spread its influence and foment terrorism aimed at toppling American allies and undermining U.S. interests.
Just as damaging was the way that, despite the outreach to the brutal Iranian tyranny, Obama and Biden both also framed their approach to the region in terms that were echoed by international human-rights groups that sought to undermine both Riyadh and Jerusalem.
Trump is rightly disdainful of this approach since it ignores the fact that moderate Arab regimes like the one in Saudi Arabia are, for all of their faults, far less of a threat to the interests of the West and their own people than that of the Iranians and their terrorist proxies. It also wrongly accepted the false Palestinian narrative about Israel being a brutal “occupier” and human-rights abuser rather than the only democracy in the region. If Israel is forced to use its military power against its enemies, it is because the Palestinians, the Iranians and their allies are still determined to pursue the destruction of the only Jewish state on the planet.
In place of both sets of misguided policies, Trump offers something that sounds less idealistic, but which is much better-suited to help the people of the region and bolster American interests.
Trump sees trade and the abandonment of war as key to a better future. He is prepared to make peace with any regime that is ready to give up the long Muslim-Arab war on Israel and engage in commerce with it and the United States. “Peace to Prosperity” was the title of the Mideast plan that Trump offered the Palestinians in 2020, which they rejected out of hand. The emphasis on economic ties and putting aside squeamishness about the authoritarian nature of the Saudi and other Gulf state regimes remains entirely rational and more likely to accelerate the process by which these nations become less oppressive. Not to mention the fact that doing so helped break down the effort on the part of the Palestinians and Iranians to maintain the isolation of Israel and to keep the destructive war against it going.
Trump’s decision to engage with the new government in Syria may prove foolish, but if it follows his advice and normalizes relations with Israel—and becomes another moderate government seeking engagement with the West—then his move will prove to be wise. The same is true of his commitment to keep growing closer with the Saudis and their modernizing leader, Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman.
The same principles seem to be behind the administration’s testing of the waters with Iran and even its plans for Gaza.
The catch to all of this is that there is very little apparent reason to believe that Tehran or Damascus can or will pursue such a rational policy. The same could be said for the prospects that growing close to Qatar will advance peace or American interests, even if making nice with Doha may be personally profitable for the Trump family and Witkoff, a factor that renders anything the administration does ethically questionable even if the rosiest of scenarios about their goodwill to the West proved to be true rather than wishful thinking.
So, how can it all turn out well?
The answer is that because Trump views foreign policy as a purely transactional business, he isn’t handicapped by the idealism of Bush or the feckless belief in appeasement and diplomacy for its own sake of Obama and Biden. He is, whatever one thinks of him, someone who knows the difference between a good deal and a bad one. If he is prepared to let bygones be bygones with groups like the Houthis or the Iranians, it is only if they conform to his ideas of how they should behave.
It is because Trump believes that American national interests must be the paramount concern of its government and diplomats, rather than other agendas that are disconnected from them, that it’s possible to believe that he will be able to judge his dealings with Qatar, Iran, Syria and any other country on the results rather than ideology.
Will that happen? We don’t know.
U.S. President Donald Trump is greeted by Emir of Qatar Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani at Lusail Palace in Doha, Qatar, May 14, 2025. Credit: Daniel Torok/White House.
No one’s sucker
Even if his characteristic embrace of any leader or country that flatters him is a terrible look and undermines confidence in his judgment as well as American national interests, this is also a president who has earned some trust from both Americans and Israelis.
Whether he coordinates with Jerusalem or not at every turn, his goals are still laudable. His consistent advocacy for normalization and the expansion of the Abraham Accords, as well as his basic positions opposing Iran’s nuclear program or the survival of Hamas, ought to inspire at least some confidence that he won’t accept a warmed-over replica of Obama’s dangerous nuclear deal or an equally catastrophic plan for Gaza that will empower the terrorists. Above all, it’s hard to imagine him passively accepting a diplomatic outcome in which Washington will be Tehran’s patsy. Trump is a lot of things, but he is no one’s sucker.
Faith in his good sense is hard to maintain while observing these recent escapades. Still, Trump’s decision to try diplomacy before reverting to force against Iran, added to his embrace of dubious partners, can be vindicated if he is able to dispassionately analyze the outcome of these gambits. Those willing to damn him as a betrayer of Israel or as hopeless a dupe of Iran as Obama need to avoid jumping to such conclusions in the absence of proof that the administration is actually abandoning a hard-headed pursuit of realpolitik national advantage.
Until then, the rational answer to the question of what the president is doing right now must rest on the assumption that he will reverse course if his new friends prove untrustworthy or treacherous, along with an acknowledgement that if he’s proven right, it will be of inestimable benefit to all.
Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of JNS (Jewish News Syndicate). Follow him: @jonathans_tobin.
New York City Mayor Eric Adams plans to introduce new legislation to the City Council calling for a comprehensive, city-wide mask ban as a measure to combat Jew-hatred, he told i24News on Thursday.
“When you see some of the protests in the street, many people are covering their faces,” he told the Israeli channel. “You saw it on the college campuses. People are covering their faces. It clearly emboldens individuals when they want to do something improper when they’re able to conceal their identity.” (JNS sought comment from the mayor’s office.)
“I don’t believe they should be able to do that,” he said.
Adams criticized recent Albany legislation, which adds penalties if a masked person is charged with a Class A misdemeanor, for falling short of a full mask ban. (Before the COVID pandemic, the state had a full mask ban.)
“We were hoping that we would have a strong piece of legislation to come out of Albany to deal with this issue,” he told i24. “The legislation, I don’t believe, goes far enough.”
Instituting a mask ban would reduce Jew-hatred incidents in New York City, according to Adams.
“When you expose the faces of people, they’re less willing to do something that is disrespectful, antisemitic, and in some cases, criminal behavior,” he said.
