When Will North Carolina or Congress Investigate Duke University for Allowing Calls for Israel’s Destruction and Other False Claims?

May13
When Will North Carolina or Congress Investigate Duke University for Allowing Calls for Israel’s Destruction and Other False Claims?

Peter Reitzes

Duke University. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Duke University has apparently permitted an entire academic department to publicly align itself against Israel.

In 2021, Duke’s Department of Gender, Sexuality and Feminist Studies endorsed a public statement declaring, “We stand in solidarity with the people of Palestine …We do not subscribe to a ‘both sides’ rhetoric.”

The Duke gender studies website presently features a section titled, “Donation Suggestions for Palestine,” which provides links to 12 organizations including Electronic Intifada and Mondoweiss, which are both stridently anti-Israel publications. There are no suggestions for donations directed towards Israel.

Anna Storti is Assistant Professor in the department. On Oct. 7, 2023, while Israelis were actively being murdered, raped, mutilated, and taken hostage by Hamas-led terrorists, Storti was reposting anti-Israel complaints on X.

In 2020, Storti tweeted “f[***]  the usa” and in 2024, posted, “F[***] these cops. Shame on the admin who call them on their own students…It’s all about Free Palestine…this month and always. Liberation within our lifetimes.”

She also reposted on X the slogan, “From the river to the sea.” The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) explains the meaning of “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”:

This is a cry for Israel to not exist. It is calling for a Palestinian state that extends from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea – effectively erasing and destroying the entire Jewish state.

Emily Rogers, Secondary Faculty in Duke’s gender studies department, was detained at the UNC anti-Israel encampment in 2024 and banned from that campus. Rogers told a local progressive paper, “We won’t stop till universities disclose and divest” and “We won’t stop ‘til all of Palestine is free.”

Mishana Garschi, Postdoctoral Associate in the Duke gender studies program, reposted on X, “having a phd and being a zionists is nuts, you need to return that damn degree because you clearly lost all sense of critical thought [sic].” She also reposted, “zionism is monstrous [sic]” and “The Israeli occupiers don’t care about the hostages [sic].”

Last week, I reported in The Algemeiner that Frances Hasso, Professor and Director of Undergraduate Studies in the same department, excitedly announced on X, “HAMAS OFFICIALLY DEFEATS ISRAEL!”

Hasso has repeatedly made social media posts using the antisemitic slur “Zio” — and also reposted on X, “Noone was raped on October 7 [sic].”

Last week, Hasso reposted a protest flyer that said in huge print, “ZIONISTS OUT!” with accompanying text, “We have found out from a trusted source that the British Museum is hosting an event ‘for Israel’ … It is our duty to confront zionists wherever they appear [sic].”

Would Duke University ever allow a professor to remain on staff after reposting: “PALESTINIANS OUT! It is our duty to confront Palestinians wherever they appear”?

In 2021, Hasso pledged to promote the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against Israel “in the classroom and on campus.”

In 2024, Hasso convened a Duke conference, the Palestine Seminar, where 12 other Duke departments and programs participated, including the Provost Initiative on the Middle East, the Department of History, the Department of English, and the Program of Literature.

Hasso also taught the Duke University Global Palestine course in 2025.

The confidence demonstrated by the Office of the Provost in Frances Hasso, along with support from 11 additional programs and departments, highlights serious concerns about Duke University’s leadership and their ability to identify and combat antisemitism.

The Duke history and gender studies departments each presently feature identical glowing reviews of Hasso’s recent book on their websites. These reviews allege that Israel is committing “Zionist settler-colonialism in Palestine.”

Duke University is not merely permitting Hasso to instruct; they are actively endorsing her. It is a disgrace that the institution offers Hasso repeated opportunities to “educate” students.

In addition, many faculty in Duke’s gender and feminist studies department have signed public, anti-Israel statements.

Priscilla Wald, Ara Wilson, and Kimberly Lamm each signed letters supporting various academic boycotts of Israel.

Anne Allison, Hasso, Charles Piot, Wald, Anne-Maria Makhulu, Jessica Namakkal, Gabriel Rosenberg, Ranjana Khanna, Adriane Lentz-Smith, and Kathi Weeks signed a 2021 statement declaring, “We acknowledge our complicity in Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians” and “express our solidarity with the Palestinian people.”

In 2023, Michael Hardt, Hasso, Rogers, Storti, and Robyn Wiegman endorsed a letter titled “Scholars Against the War on Palestine,” which demanded an immediate ceasefire, asserting their solidarity with Palestinians. The letter criticized Israel extensively while failing to acknowledge, even once, the violent assault by Hamas on Oct. 7 or the hundreds of hostages held by Hamas-affiliated terrorists at that time.

Last week, I detailed years of anti-Israel publications at Duke University Press. As an example, a recent Duke Press publication actually accuses Israelis of viewing Palestinians as rapeable. The author added, Israelis “carry their rifles as an extension of phallic power.”

Duke University has permitted an entire academic department and its university press to align against Israel. This is hostile towards the vast majority of American Jews that believe in the existence of a Jewish State. Clearly an investigation is in order.

Peter Reitzes writes about issues related to antisemitism and Israel.

Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com

You Are Not the Media

May13
You Are Not the Media

Alana Newhouse

And that’s good news

Alex Woz

More than a decade ago, I gave a speech in Cleveland. During the Q&A, a man in the back asked me what I thought of the then-emerging Iran deal, and I hemmed and hawed my way through a bullshit answer that said nothing. As I was leaving, he approached me. “Listen,” he said firmly. “I’m a dentist. It’s my job to wake up in the morning and fix people’s teeth. It’s your job to tell me what to think about the Iran deal or Greenpeace or whatever. If my patient’s teeth end up falling out of their mouth, they’ll find another dentist. If your ideas about the world don’t help me better understand and navigate it, I’ll find another magazine. But that’s your job, and you have to do it.”

I thought about my dentist friend the day after Trump’s reelection, when Elon Musk posted on X, “You are the media now.” It isn’t the richest man in the world’s most liked post—that honor still belongs to 2022’s “Next I’m buying Coca-Cola to put the cocaine back in”—but, with 1.2 million likes and 107 million views, it’s up there.

I wouldn’t enter a rocket-making competition against Musk or a baby-making one or a who-can-survive-on-less-sleep contest. He’s even been to Auschwitz more recently than I have. In fact, this isn’t about him at all. This is about you, and making sure you haven’t been confused by recent events.

You are not the media.

Thankfully, neither are the people who had been for decades. Those individuals and outlets—newspaper, magazine, and television brands that collectively controlled public opinion for decades—have been dethroned, and not a minute too soon.

So, who is the media now? Are we all meant to sit on X all day looking at videos from the latest hurricane to know whether we like our president or not? Is it now your responsibility to curate your TikTok feed so you can know what to think about taxes? Social media is a miracle, but when it comes to enlightenment, it turns out that you get what you pay for. In exchange for their zero dollars, Americans have been dropped—gradually, and then seemingly all at once—into an ocean of free propaganda and mental confusion.

The media’s job is to mediate, which in this case means forming a usable and trustworthy connection between people and the world at large. Doing that for yourself is like being one’s own therapist; it just doesn’t work.

You are not the media, because the media’s job is to mediate, which in this case means forming a usable and trustworthy connection between people and the world at large. Doing that for yourself is like being one’s own therapist; it just doesn’t work. And while your ability to see that world more directly through your phone certainly tweaks the old definition of our profession, it doesn’t undo it. If anything, between government-sponsored spin, social media engagement farming, and deep fakes, there’s an even greater need for people whose job it is to wake up every day and tell you the truth—and before it’s too late for you to do anything about it.

For 16 years, Tablet’s central feature has been our ability to observe the world clearly—a skill that gave us a spooky ability to see around corners, which was especially useful as legacy outlets proved uninterested in acknowledging, let alone interpreting, obvious realities that people could see with their own eyes. We then took advantage of the web’s new instruments of accessibility and speed to bring that foresight to as many people as possible.

But now the internet is dying, in large part because it creates audiences that are broad but shallow—a majority of which these days are bots, driven by AI. On internet platforms, you may indeed feel like the media, but you are mainly its food.

By liberating you from the responsibility of being your own media, we are freeing you up to be something much more important and, frankly, much more radical in this moment: human.

Alana Newhouse is the editor-in-chief of Tablet Magazine.

Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com

Nielegalne przejmowanie ziemi przez Europę

May12

[Wielu w Izraelu] domaga się polityki zerowej tolerancji wobec nielegalnej budowy, niezależnie od funduszy UE i pozwów sądowych, i wezwali rząd Izraela do podjęcia długo oczekiwanych działań dyplomatycznych, które jasno pokażą UE, że ustanowiono czerwone linie, które będą egzekwowane. Na zdjęciu: izraelscy żołnierze stoją obok nielegalnie zbudowanej konstrukcji w Strefie C, grudzień 2021 (Zdjęcie: Wisam Hashlamoun/Flash90.)

Nielegalne przejmowanie ziemi przez Europę

Karys Rhea Tłumaczenie: Małgorzata Koraszewska

Izrael stoczył monumentalną sześciodniową wojnę w 1967 roku z sąsiadującymi Egiptem, Syrią i Jordanią, które zaatakowały ten mały kraj z deklarowanym celem wymazania państwa żydowskiego z mapy. Ku zdumieniu społeczności międzynarodowej Izrael niespodziewanie wyszedł zwycięsko, zyskując kontrolę nad wieloma terytoriami, w tym Zachodnim Brzegiem. Zachodni Brzeg czyli Judea i Samaria, gdzie przed 1948 rokiem żyła kwitnąca populacja żydowska, był od 1948 do 1967 roku nielegalnie okupowany przez Haszymidzkie Królestwo Jordanii bez międzynarodowego uznania. W tym czasie Jordania dokonała czystek etnicznych żydowskich mieszkańców i zniszczyła dziesiątki synagog. Zmieniła nazwę regionu na „Zachodni Brzeg”, co oznacza „na zachód od rzeki Jordan”, aby zerwać wszelkie żydowskie powiązania z tym krajem w celu zalegalizowania okupacji terytorium, które nigdy nie było częścią jego międzynarodowo uznanych granic.

Kiedy Izrael wyrwał kontrolę nad Zachodnim Brzegiem Jordanii w 1967 r., powstrzymał się od aneksji terytorium, natychmiast oferując wymianę ziemi za pokój. Ta bezprecedensowa propozycja spotkała się z głośnymi „Trzema Nie” na niesławnym Szczycie Ligi Arabskiej w Chartumie w 1967 r.: „Żadnego pokoju z Izraelem. Żadnych negocjacji z Izraelem. Żadnego uznania Izraela”. W rezultacie Zachodni Brzeg znalazł się pod izraelską władzą wojskową.

„Z powodów, których nie potrafię wyjaśnić, Izrael myślał, że może uszczęśliwić wszystkich. Tak właśnie powstało to monstrum” — mówi Naomi Kahn, dyrektorka ds. międzynarodowych Regavim, organizacji pozarządowej „poświęconej ochronie narodowych ziem i zasobów Izraela”. Monstrum, o którym mówi Kahn, to Koordynator Działań Rządowych na Terytoriach (COGAT) i jego Administracja Cywilna Judei i Samarii. COGAT jest jednostką Ministerstwa Obrony, a Administracja Cywilna odpowiada za zarządzanie „Obszarem C” Zachodniego Brzegu (częściami, które nie są zarządzane przez Autonomię Palestyńską) i zarządzanie wszystkimi sprawami dotyczącymi cywilów, zarówno Żydów, jak i Arabów.

Zamiast rozciągnąć prawo izraelskie na terytorium wyzwolone w 1967 r., przywódcy Izraela postanowili „tymczasowo” utrzymać istniejące ramy prawne do czasu osiągnięcia rozwiązania w negocjacjach z Arabami. Do dziś dowódca regionu centralnego Sił Obronnych Izraela, (a nie wybrani przedstawiciele), zachowuje możliwość stanowienia prawa i administrowania obszarem C. Według Kahn:

„Osobiście żyję pod rządami wojskowymi. To nie tylko nieefektywne, ale i śmieszne. To ogromna biurokracja, która wydaje się robić bardzo mało. Armia – jakakolwiek armia – po prostu nie jest w stanie zastąpić rządu. To nie jest to, co mają robić armie”.

Chociaż technicznie rzecz biorąc COGAT otrzymuje rozkazy od ministra obrony, na co dzień działa autonomicznie. Izraelskie prawo nakazuje, aby próby wtargnięcia na teren i przejęcia ziemi były przechwytywane, ale dowódcy COGAT są ostrożni w działaniu i obawiają się globalnego potępienia. Personel nauczył się oczekiwać nagłówków w międzynarodowych mediach, a także formalnych skarg, gróźb i pozwów ze strony Unii Europejskiej, gdy tylko usuną dach z nielegalnej konstrukcji — którą UE prawdopodobnie i tak odbuduje.

Na miejsce każdej zburzonej budowli powstaje pięć nowych. Fakt, że Palestyńczycy mają prawo wnosić skargi przeciwko COGAT i Administracji Cywilnej do Sądu Najwyższego Izraela, jeszcze bardziej podważa egzekwowanie prawa. Zarówno zagraniczne, jak i izraelskie organizacje pozarządowe otrzymują miliony euro rocznie na „ochronę” Palestyńczyków w systemie sądowniczym, co jest wspierane apelacjami. W międzyczasie Palestyńczycy budują i budują, stosując strategię walki z Izraelem przy pomocy jego własnego systemu sądowego.

Podczas gdy oficerowie COGAT mają różne osobiste poglądy na temat konfliktu arabsko-izraelskiego, IDF ma tendencję do konformizmu i orientacji na sprawy techniczne, troszcząc się o szkolenie taktyczne, gotowość i przeciwdziałanie terroryzmowi, a także skupiając się na bezpośrednich, krytycznych zagrożeniach ze strony Libanu, Syrii, Gazy i Iranu. Establishment obronny postrzega Zachodni Brzeg jako spór polityczny, a nie kwestię bezpieczeństwa narodowego.

Ale COGAT jest w pełni świadomy skali wrogiego przejęcia w Strefie C i decyduje się nie egzekwować swojego prawnego mandatu. Ze względu na silną presję ze strony UE funkcjonariusze COGAT rutynowo rozmawiają z urzędnikami Autonomii Palestyńskiej i wypracowują porozumienia o powstrzymaniu się od wyburzania konkretnej infrastruktury zbudowanej zgodnie z planem głównym byłego premiera Autonomii Palestyńskiej Salmana Fajjada. Podczas gdy COGAT czasami burzy nieautoryzowane konstrukcje uważane za niebezpieczne z punktu widzenia bezpieczeństwa, takie jak te zbudowane w pobliżu stref szkoleniowych lub poligonów IDF, przylegające do głównych arterii komunikacyjnych lub te, które były używane jako lokalizacja wyrzutni służących do ataków terrorystycznych, te wyburzenia są niezwykle rzadkie i prawie zawsze spotykają się z ogromnym zainteresowaniem międzynarodowych mediów i z potępieniem.

Przez wniesienie sprawy do Sądu Najwyższego Regavim zdołał zmusić COGAT do ujawnienia listy ustalonych priorytetów egzekwowania prawa. Na szczycie listy znalazło się zapobieganie żydowskiej budowie na gruntach prywatnych lub państwowych, a na samym dole listy znalazły się przejęcia zorganizowane przez AP-UE. Innymi słowy, Ministerstwo Obrony Izraela zostało na mocy nakazu sądowego zmuszone do przyznania, że jego wytyczne dotyczące egzekwowania prawa w zakresie polityki użytkowania gruntów były nastawione przeciwko Żydom i na korzyść Arabów. „Pozwalają Palestyńczykom robić rzeczy, na które nigdy nie pozwoliliby Żydom” — twierdzi dr Jiszai Spivak, badacz śledczy z Ad Kan, izraelskiej organizacji non-profit.

Ponadto PA nigdy nie zgłasza zgonów ani emigracji z obszaru C i uzupełnia swoje statystyki populacji o osoby, które nigdy nie postawiły stopy na Bliskim Wschodzie — na przykład dzieci, które urodziły się i wychowały za granicą, ale których rodzice kiedyś mieszkali w tym regionie. Daje im to możliwość przedstawienia obszaru jako zaludnionego przez Arabów. Znacznie poważniejszym problemem może być jednak to, że AP aktywnie i publicznie zachęca mieszkańców obszarów A i B do przeprowadzki do obszaru C, co może być naruszeniem Konwencji Genewskiej.

Tymczasem Administracja Cywilna nie robi nic, aby chronić interesy narodowe Izraela w tym zakresie. Nie przechowuje danych o populacji, co umożliwia jej wygodne twierdzenie, że obsługuje ogromną liczbę mieszkańców i rzekomo uzasadnia jej budżet. Jeśli ma się rozpocząć rozmowa o marnotrawionych zasobach izraelskich i międzynarodowych oraz potrzebach obecnej i przyszłej populacji, pierwszym krokiem jest spis ludności.

Regavim i inni wezwali do całkowitego rozwiązania COGAT. Żądają polityki zerowej tolerancji wobec nielegalnej budowy, niezależnie od funduszy UE i pozwów sądowych, i wezwali rząd Izraela do podjęcia długo oczekiwanych działań dyplomatycznych, które jasno pokażą UE, że ustanowiono czerwone linie, które będą egzekwowane. „Izraelskie kierownictwo jako całość nie zachowuje się jak suwerenny rząd z kręgosłupem, który egzekwuje prawo i chroni bezpieczeństwo i interesy narodowe ludzi” – argumentuje Kahn.

Podczas sześciomiesięcznej kadencji Naftalego Bennetta jako ministra obrony w latach 2019-2020 zaczął on nazywać Strefę C polem bitwy, a masowe nielegalne użytkowanie gruntów przez AP określał jako strategiczne zagrożenie militarne. Wraz ze wzrostem egzekwowania prawa poczyniono niewielki postęp. Nadal jednak była to kwestia skali. Burzono szopę, ale pozostawiano nielegalne przyłącza elektryczne i wodne, bo UE mówiła, że to jest kwestia humanitarna. Avigdor Lieberman, który pełnił funkcję ministra obrony w latach 2016-2018, zabrał głos w podobny sposób, ale napotkał niezainteresowanych biurokratów i opór wielu Europejczyków, którzy mają bezpośredni kontakt ze swoimi politycznymi odpowiednikami w rządzie Izraela. Chociaż Ministerstwo Wywiadu opublikowało pełny raport w czerwcu 2021 r., w którym przedstawiono kompleksową analizę palestyńskich nielegalnych przejęć ziemi i nasycenia demograficznego Strefy C, niewiele się zmieniło od czasu publikacji tego raportu.

Ostatecznie w Izraelu jak dotąd nie było woli politycznej, by przeciwdziałać palestyńskiej nielegalnej budowie w Strefie C. Również z powodu braku woli politycznej władze Izraela pozwalają na rozprzestrzenianie się nielegalnej broni w społecznościach arabsko-izraelskich, a klanom beduińskim na zakładanie nielegalnych wiosek na pustyni Negew.

Rząd nie wydaje ostatecznych, wykonalnych rozkazów COGAT — chce uniknąć negatywnej prasy lub bardziej brutalnej konfrontacji z Palestyńczykami w przyszłości. Dlatego izraelscy politycy i urzędnicy podchodzą do problemu za pomocą lokalnych, doraźnych rozwiązań, a nie pełnego ataku frontalnego. Według generała brygady Amira Aviviego (w stanie spoczynku), założyciela Israel Defense and Security Forum:

„Oni nie traktują tego jako wojny, a to jest wojna. W rzeczywistości jest to bardziej niebezpieczne niż inne wojny. W tej chwili Palestyńczycy wygrywają tę wojnę. Za 20 lub 30 lat będzie to zagrożenie egzystencjalne. Musimy się obudzić”.

Spivak zgadza się, dodając, że Izrael prowadzi dwa rodzaje wojen z Palestyńczykami. Jednym z nich jest wojna terrorystyczna, w której Palestyńczycy stosują przemoc fizyczną wobec obywateli państwa Izrael. Drugim jest wojna bez przemocy lub wojna cywilna, w której Palestyńczycy próbują delegitymizować Izrael za pośrednictwem różnych kanałów, takich jak ONZ, media społecznościowe lub globalny ruch BDS.

Innym powodem, dla którego izraelskie kierownictwo nie traktuje tej kwestii z powagą, na jaką zasługuje, jest to, że jego ministrowie są zazwyczaj u władzy przez krótki czas i mogą zostać odwołani w krótkim czasie. Przez rok do dwóch lat, jak zazwyczaj trwa ich kadencja, są przede wszystkim zainteresowani budowaniem swojej reputacji, desperacko pragnąc międzynarodowej akceptacji. Mówiąc prościej, system polityczny wspiera biurokratów. Wiedzą, że aby rozwiązać problem tej natury i skali, musieliby podjąć drastyczne działania przeciwko UE, Autonomii Palestyńskiej i COGAT. Biorąc pod uwagę bolesny, niepewny status Izraela w krajobrazie geopolitycznym, jest mało prawdopodobne, aby jakakolwiek przewidywalna koalicja ustanowiła precedens i zmieniła ten schemat.

Nawet przywódcy społeczności żydowskich w Judei i Samarii nie reagują na tę ingerencję jako na zagrożenie egzystencjalne. Na przykład w mieście Efrat, gdy Izraelczycy skarżą się burmistrzowi na nielegalne arabskie struktury pojawiające się w ich dzielnicach, najwięcej, co burmistrz zrobi, jeśli w ogóle cokolwiek, to zadzwoni do Administracji Cywilnej, a następnie szybko zapomni o sprawie.

Wielu przywódców żydowskich na Zachodnim Brzegu skupia się na zaspokajaniu potrzeb swoich małych społeczności na co dzień. Ich skuteczność jest poważnie ograniczona, ponieważ zależą od przysług wielu ministerstw rządowych, w tym ministerstwa transportu, obrony, finansów i spraw wewnętrznych, które nie sprawują bezpośredniej jurysdykcji za „zieloną linią”. Ci burmistrzowie mają ograniczoną liczbę próśb i na ogół żądanie usunięcia nielegalnych budów nie odnosi skutku, zwłaszcza że prawdopodobnie zostaną odbudowane w ciągu kilku tygodni. Dla wielu przywódców w żydowskich miastach i wioskach, dopóki nie ma procesu pokojowego, status quo jest wszystkim, z czym mogą pracować.

Niemniej minister finansów Bezalel Smotrich podjął szereg działań karnych przeciwko AP i wypowiedział się ostro pod adresem UE, zobowiązując się do zablokowania ich agresywnej działalności, którą nazwał „sprzeczną z prawem międzynarodowym i niezgodną z podstawowymi zasadami dyplomacji w stosunkach między państwami”. We wspólnym liście dziesiątki członków Knesetu potępiło poufny dokument UE z czerwca 2022 r. jako poważne naruszenie relacji UE-Izrael, którego wagi nie można przecenić, pisząc:

„Pod cienką warstwą uprzejmości i manier UE oraz troski o prawa człowieka można znaleźć te same stare oszczerstwa o mordach rytualnych, wraz z tymi samymi płomieniami pierwotnej nienawiści, które tym razem dążą do prześladowania – nie pojedynczego Żyda, ale maleńkiego państwa żydowskiego”.

Może być nawet tak, że prawicowcy, tacy jak Smotrich i inni, doszli do władzy właśnie ze względu na rosnącą frustrację Izraela spowodowaną tym, że fundamentalne zagrożenia, takie jak to, są od tak dawna ignorowane.

Karys Rhea jest dziennikarką Epoch Times, pracuje również w Middle East Forum. Jej konto na X @rheakarys.

Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com

380,000,000 Christians Persecuted for ‘Their Faith’: Where Is the Outrage?

May12
380,000,000 Christians Persecuted for ‘Their Faith’: Where Is the Outrage?

Raymond Ibrahim

  • The top 13 of the 50 nations on the World Watch List 2025 are characterized by the worst form of persecution: “extreme.” They are: 1) North Korea, 2) Somalia, 3) Yemen, 4) Libya, 5) Sudan, 6) Eritrea, 7) Nigeria, 8) Pakistan, 9) Iran, 10) Afghanistan, 11) India, 12) Saudi Arabia, and 13) Myanmar.
  • [M]ost of the “extreme persecution” meted out to Christians in nine of these 13 worst nations continues to come either from Islamic oppression, or occurs in nations with large Muslim populations. Significantly, this means that approximately 70% of the absolute worst (“extreme”) persecution around the globe takes place under the aegis, or in the name, of Islam.
  • [T]he persecution of Christians by Muslims is perennial, existential, and far transcends this or that ruler or regime. Persecution of the “other” in Islam is part of its history, doctrines and socio-political makeup — hence its tenacity and ubiquity
  • “More believers are killed for their faith in Nigeria than anywhere else in the world.” — World Watch List 2025.
  • “[R]oughly a quarter of all blasphemy accusations [in Pakistan] target Christians, who make up just 1.8 percent of the population. Blasphemy laws carry a death sentence.” — World Watch List 2025.
  • “In Afghanistan, leaving Islam… and conversion is punishable by death under Islamic law. This has been increasingly enforced since the Taliban took control of the country in 2021.” — World Watch List 2025.
  • Even in nations that would appear to be friendly or at least neutral to Christianity, such as Cuba, Mexico and Nicaragua, Christians are being abused for their faith…

“More believers are killed for their faith in Nigeria than anywhere else in the world,” according to World Watch List 2025. Pictured: The Church of Christ in Nations building in Mangu, Nigeria, photographed on February 2, 2024, after it was torched by Islamic terrorists. (Photo by Kola Sulaimon/AFP via Getty Images)

In 2024, around the world, 4,476 Christians — more than 12 a day on average — were “killed for faith related reasons.” Another 4,744 Christians were arrested or illegally detained, and 7,679 churches and other Christian institutions were attacked, often destroyed.

Overall, the global persecution of Christians has reached unprecedented levels. “More than 380m Christians suffer high levels of persecution and discrimination for their faith,” according to the World Watch List 2025 (WWL) published earlier this year by the international human rights organization, Open Doors.

Every year, the WWL ranks the top 50 nations in which Christians are the most persecuted for their faith. The data is compiled by thousands of grassroots workers and external experts. The latest edition of the WWL covers October 1, 2023 to September 30, 2024.

According to the WWL, around the world, one in seven Christians (14%) is persecuted. In Africa, that number grows to one in five (20%). In Asia, it is a shocking two in five — meaning 40% of all Christians there are persecuted.

The list categorizes three levels of persecution: “extreme”, “very high” and “high.”

The top 13 of the 50 nations on the list are characterized by the worst form of persecution: “extreme.” They are: 1) North Korea, 2) Somalia, 3) Yemen, 4) Libya, 5) Sudan, 6) Eritrea, 7) Nigeria, 8) Pakistan, 9) Iran, 10) Afghanistan, 11) India, 12) Saudi Arabia, and 13) Myanmar.

The form of persecution experienced there ranges from assault, rape, imprisonment, or even murder on being identified as a Christian or attending (usually underground) churches.

Coming in as #1 is North Korea:

“If your Christian faith is discovered in North Korea, you could be killed on the spot. If you aren’t killed, you will be deported to a labour camp and treated as a political criminal. You will be punished with years of hard labour that few survive. And it’s not only you who will be punished: North Korean authorities are likely to round up your extended family and punish them too, even if your family members aren’t Christians. There is no church life in North Korea. It’s impossible to gather for worship or prayer, and even secret worship and prayer is at great risk. Official spies could inform on you, if they have any indication that you are a Christian, and so could your neighbours or teachers.”

Not surprisingly, most of the “extreme persecution” meted out to Christians in nine of these 13 worst nations continues to come either from Islamic oppression, or occurs in nations with large Muslim populations. Significantly, this means that approximately 70% of the absolute worst (“extreme”) persecution around the globe takes place under the aegis, or in the name, of Islam.

This trend affects the entire list: the rest of the “very high” or “high” levels of persecution that Christians experience in 37 of the 50 ranked nations (or 74%), also comes either from Islamic oppression or occurs in nations with majority or large Muslim populations. Many of these nations are governed by some form of shari’a (Islamic law). Those enforcing the persecution can either be the government or society or, more frequently, both, although societies — particularly family members outraged by relatives who have converted — tend to be more zealous in the application of shari’a.

This means that although the persecution in North Korea is worse, there is at least a light at the end of the tunnel: the ill-treatment of Christians is entirely connected to the regime of Kim Jong-un. “Recognising any deity beyond the Kim family is considered a threat to the country’s leadership,” notes the report. Once the Kim family is gone, which is inevitable, North Korea may well become like South Korea, where Christianity is flourishing.

Conversely, the persecution of Christians by Muslims is perennial, existential, and far transcends this or that ruler or regime. Persecution of the “other” in Islam is part of its history, doctrines and socio-political makeup — hence its tenacity and ubiquity. Brief summaries of the dangers of being Christian in the nine Muslim nations where “extreme” levels of persecution occur include:

Somalia, #2, where only a few hundred Christians are believed to exist,

“… following Jesus is a matter of life and death. Al-Shabab, a violent Islamist militant group… enforces a strict form of Sharia (Islamic law) and is committed to eradicating Christianity from Somalia. They have often killed Somali Christians on the spot. The dangers have increased over the years, as the militants have increasingly focused on finding and eliminating Christian leaders.

Yemen, #3:

“The country is now divided into territory ruled by three different [Muslim] powers, as well as some areas held by al-Qaeda and the so-called Islamic State. None of the powers involved are sympathetic to Christians, and the official constitution upholds Sharia (Islamic law) and no freedom of religion. The 1% of Yemenis from minority religions are severely marginalised. Relief aid is mostly distributed through local Muslim groups and mosques, which are alleged to be discriminating against anyone not considered a devout Muslim. If someone is reported to be a Christian and or involved in Christian activities, they could face severe monitoring, arbitrary detention, torture, ill-treatment and even murder.”

Libya, #4:

“…following Jesus is a huge risk for anyone. Libyan Christians with a Muslim background face violent pressure from their families and communities to renounce their faith. Foreign Christians, especially those from sub-Saharan Africa, are targeted by Islamist militant and criminal groups. These groups kidnap and sometimes brutally kill Christians. Even if they avoid such a fate, sub-Saharan Christians face harassment and threats from radical Muslims. Christians who openly express their faith or try to share it with others risk arrest and violent opposition.”

Sudan, #5:

“Sudan was on a path towards religious freedom, but a coup and devastating war dashed these hopes. Christians are once again in danger… [T]he conflict has given Islamist extremists more opportunity to target them. More than 100 churches have been damaged so far, and Christians have been abducted and killed. Sudanese Christians who have come to faith from a Muslim background face severe backlash from their families and communities. These believers tend to keep their faith secret, even from their own children. Christians are also experiencing exceptional hardship in the hunger crisis because local communities discriminate against them and won’t give them support.”

Nigeria, #7:

“Jihadist violence continues to escalate in Nigeria, and Christians are particularly at risk from targeted attacks by Islamist militants, including Fulani fighters, Boko Haram and ISWAP (Islamic State West Africa Province)…. The attacks are shockingly brutal. Many believers are killed, particularly men, while women are often kidnapped and targeted for sexual violence. More believers are killed for their faith in Nigeria than anywhere else in the world. [A total of 3,100 Nigerian Christians “paid the ultimate price for their faith” in 2024.] These militants also destroy homes, churches and livelihoods. More than 16.2 million Christians in sub-Saharan Africa, including high numbers from Nigeria, have been driven from their homes by violence and conflict. Millions now live in displacement camps. Christians living in northern Nigerian states under Sharia (Islamic law) can also face discrimination and oppression as second-class citizens. Converts from Islam often experience rejection from their own families and pressure to renounce their new faith. They often have to flee their homes for fear of being killed.”

Christian carnage is so endemic to Nigeria that, only recently, on April 13 — Palm Sunday — 54 Christians were slaughtered following church celebrations in one village alone. And as bad as it is in Nigeria, “Sadly, more Christians were killed outside Nigeria, many in sub-Saharan Africa countries like DRC, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Niger.” The report continues

“Multiple countries in Sub-Saharan Africa have seen a rise in violence against Christians. Currently, 8 of the top 10 deadliest places for Christians are in Sub-Saharan Africa—and all of them (except Nigeria) have more faith-based killings than they did during the 2024 World Watch List reporting period.”

Pakistan, #8:

“Pakistan’s notorious blasphemy laws are often used to target minority groups, but Christians are disproportionately affected. Indeed, roughly a quarter of all blasphemy accusations target Christians, who make up just 1.8 per cent of the population. Blasphemy laws carry a death sentence. While this is seldom carried out, people accused of blasphemy are vulnerable to attack or murder by mobs. In June 2024, an elderly man was killed by mob violence after being accused of desecrating the Quran…. Historical churches … are heavily monitored and have been targeted for bomb attacks. The number of Christian girls (and those from other minority religions) abducted, abused and forcefully converted to Islam (frequently backed by lower courts) is growing…. All Christians suffer institutionalised discrimination. Occupations that are deemed low, dirty and degrading – such as cleaning sewers or working in brick kilns – are reserved for Christians by the authorities. Many are referred to as ‘chura’, a derogatory term meaning ‘filthy’. Christians are also vulnerable to being trapped in bonded labour.”

Iran, #9:

“Unrecognised converts from Islam to Christianity face severe religious freedom violations, primarily from the government and, to a lesser extent, from society and their families. The government views these converts as a threat, believing they are influenced by Western countries to undermine Islam and the regime. Both leaders and ordinary members of Christian groups are often arrested, prosecuted and given long prison sentences for ‘crimes against national security’. Recognised historical communities such as Armenian and Assyrian Christians are state-protected but treated as second-class citizens. They face many discriminatory legal provisions and are not allowed to worship in Persian or interact with Christian converts. Those who support converts can also face imprisonment.”

Afghanistan, #10:

“Most Afghan Christians are converts from Islam, which makes it basically impossible to practise their faith openly. In Afghanistan, leaving Islam … and conversion is punishable by death under Islamic law. This has been increasingly enforced since the Taliban took control of the country in 2021. If converts are discovered, the family, clan or tribe may try to preserve its ‘honour’ and deal with the convert through pressure, violence or even murder. If a convert’s faith is discovered by the government, many Afghan believers have no other option but to try to flee. Women and ethnic minorities experience additional oppression. Christians among these groups live under unthinkable pressure.”

Saudi Arabia, #12:

“It’s very risky to become a Christian in Saudi Arabia. Not only is it illegal to leave the Islamic faith, new believers will face intense opposition from their families and communities as well…. Because of this, most Saudi Christians tend to follow their faith quietly and secretly. This extends as far as not even telling their own spouse or children about their faith, for fear that extended family members or school staff could discover that they have left Islam. There are no legal church buildings or meetings…. The majority of the Christians living in Saudi Arabia are temporary workers from other countries. They are forbidden from sharing their faith with local Saudis, and gathering for worship is restricted. Breaking these rules can get them detained and deported.”

Notably, the nine “extreme” persecuting Muslim nations listed above are different in many respects—racially, socially, economically and governmentally: some are rich (Saudi Arabia), while others are unimaginably poor (Somalia); some are advanced (Iran), while others are far from it (Yemen); they are represented by a variety of governments (republics, monarchies, theocracies); and various different races are represented — Arabs, sub-Saharan Africans, Pakistanis, Persians and Afghans. The only commonality they all share, the common denominator, is Islam.

The variety grows when looking at the full list of 50 nations, which also includes Sinic and Turkic nations—such as Maldives (#16), Uzbekistan (#25), Turkey (#45), and Brunei (#48)— all of which share little in common other than Islam. Kyrgyzstan, which has not made the top 50 list since 2013, made a dramatic return at #47:

“There was a sharp increase in violence against the church, many registered churches and Christian institutions were forced to close, and pressure on Christians increased in almost all spheres of life.”

Beyond the Muslim world, however, hostility for Christianity has, in fact, become pandemic. As the report notes:

“Several countries on the World Watch List saw an increase in anti-Christian violence. While the contexts were different, either tightly controlled autocratic states, or countries that are unstable due to weak government or civil war, the result was the same: targeting of Christian communities, destruction of lives, homes and churches, and immense pressure on believers.”

A rise in Hindu nationalism has made India (#11) a hotbed of persecution:

“In India, Hindu extremists view all Christians as outsiders and aim to cleanse the nation of Islam and Christianity, often using extensive violence. This hostility is often driven by Hindutva, an ongoing Hindu nationalist belief among some extremists that Indians ought to be Hindu – and no other faith will be tolerated. This mindset has led to violent attacks across the country and impunity for the people who hold these beliefs, especially where the authorities are also Hindu hardliners. In such places, Christians who attend house churches risk attack by extremist mobs who target services. Additionally, 12 states have passed anti-conversion laws, which threaten religious freedom for individual believers.“

Even in Buddhist Myanmar (#13), the last nation to make the top 13 offenders, where Christians experience “extreme” levels of persecution:

“Since the military coup in February 2021, Christians have encountered greater violence and tighter restrictions. Believers have been killed and churches have been indiscriminately attacked. This includes those in predominantly Christian states… More Christians than ever have been driven out of their homes and have found refuge in churches or displacement camps. Some are even forced to flee to the jungle where they are often deprived of access to food and health care. Government forces have continued to disproportionately attack Christian villages and churches. They have also killed Christian aid workers and pastors, often in aerial attacks. Beyond the conflict, converts to Christianity find themselves persecuted by their Buddhist, Muslim or tribal families and communities because they have left their former faith. Communities who aim to stay ‘Buddhist only’ make life impossible for Christian families.”

Even in nations that would appear to be friendly or at least neutral to Christianity, such as Cuba, Nicaragua and Mexico, Christians are being abused for their faith, by a variety of actors and for a variety of reasons.

In communist Cuba, #26:

“Church leaders and Christian activists who criticise the regime can face interrogation, arrest and imprisonment. They also suffer smear campaigns, travel restrictions, and harassment (which can include physical violence and damage to church buildings).”

Although not communist, in Nicaragua, #30:

“Hostility toward Christians continues to intensify: those who speak out against President Ortega and his government are viewed as destabilising agents. …Christian leaders have been harassed and arrested, Christian properties seized, Christian schools, TV stations and charities closed, and churches monitored and intimidated.”

In Mexico (#31), drug cartels target Christians, especially if they speak out against their activities or try to lead the youth away from them; in southern Mexico, especially “in some Indigenous communities, those who decide to leave ancestral and traditional beliefs to follow Jesus face ostracism, fines, incarceration and forced displacement.”

Perhaps the most disturbing trend is that the persecution of Christians continues to grow every year, and has nearly doubled since 1993, when the WWL was first issued. Then, only 40 nations scored high enough to warrant sufficient tracking. Today, nearly double that number qualify, though the list only ranks the top 50.

How long before this ongoing trend metastasizes into even those Western nations once hailed for their religious liberties?

Raymond Ibrahim, author of Defenders of the West, Sword and Scimitar, Crucified Again, and The Al Qaeda Reader, is the Distinguished Senior Shillman Fellow at the Gatestone Institute and the Judith Rosen Friedman Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Follow Raymond Ibrahim on X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook

Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com

When Did the Current Wave of Antisemitism Begin?

May12
When Did the Current Wave of Antisemitism Begin?

Ben Cohen / JNS.org

Jewish-American Wall Street journalist Daniel Pearl. Photo: Screenshot

In nearly 30 years of writing and speaking about global antisemitism, I’ve been asked more than once if it’s possible to pinpoint when this present wave of hatred first reared its head. It’s a question that takes on added significance in the wake of the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas pogrom in Israel—the event that continues to drive the topic of antisemitism to the top of the headlines around the world.

Of course, antisemitism never faded away entirely, as most Jews know all too well. The decades that followed the Allied victory over Nazi Germany, whose 80th anniversary we marked last week, ushered in an unprecedented age of empowerment for the Jewish people. In most of the Diaspora (the Soviet Union and the Arab states being glaring exceptions), the civil and political rights of Jewish communities were enshrined, bolstered by the widely shared taboo on antisemitic rhetoric and activity that coalesced alongside revelations of the horror of the Nazi concentration camps. More importantly, for the first time in two millennia, the Jews finally achieved their own state, with armed forces that proved eminently capable of defeating the threats to Israel’s existence from around the region.

We had been, in the parlance of the early theorists of Zionism, “normalized”—or at least we thought as much.

The age of empowerment was not a golden age. Jews still languishing in the Soviet Union were persecuted and forbidden to make aliyah. The flourishing of multiple armed Palestinian organizations after the 1967 war subjected Israelis and Diaspora Jews to terrorist outrages, among them airplane hijackings and gun attacks on synagogues. The United Nations, whose General Assembly passed a 1975 resolution equating Zionism with racism, became the main incubator of the loathing directed at Israel. The brief postwar honeymoon between the Jews and the political left ended around the same time, replaced with the defamatory barbs about “apartheid” and “Zionist racism” that still plague us today.

Even so, at the turn of this century, there was a notable deterioration. For much of the 1990s, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians had seemed close to resolution, symbolized by the brief handshake on the White House lawn between the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO leader Yasser Arafat. But in 2000, five years after Rabin was assassinated in Tel Aviv, Arafat launched a second intifada against Israel, and the old hardline positions were reinstated. Much of the world followed Arafat’s cue, as demonstrated at the U.N.’s 2001 conference against racism in Durban, South Africa, held a few days before the Al-Qaeda atrocities in the United States on Sept. 11. There, NGOs and governments alike berated Israel, and Jewish delegates were subjected to the kind of abuse (“Hitler was right”) that has become all too common in the present day.

In tandem with the collapse in relations between Israel and the Palestinians, antisemitism returned with a vengeance, particularly in Europe, spurred by an unholy alliance of Islamist organizations rooted in the continent’s various Muslim communities, and a far left baying for Israeli and American blood after 9/11. It was in Pakistan, however, that the murder that came to symbolize this new reality occurred.

At the end of January 2002, Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, an American Jew, was abducted from a hotel in Karachi by Islamist terrorists. A few days later, video surfaced online (at that time, the technology was still novel) of Pearl’s savage execution. After uttering his final words—“My father is Jewish, my mother is Jewish, I am Jewish”—Pearl was beheaded on camera by his captors.

To my mind, his sickening fate signaled the beginning of the revived trend that Jews are still confronting. I say that because this wasn’t a case of ugly rhetoric or graffiti, a smashed window or even an unsuspecting Jewish passerby getting punched in the face. This was a cold-blooded, ideologically driven murder that exposed the lethal violence that lurks inside every committed Jew-hater.

Last week, one of the terrorists involved in Pearl’s kidnapping and murder was reportedly eliminated during the Indian airstrikes on Pakistan undertaken in response to the killing of 26 civilians by Pakistani-backed terrorists in Kashmir on April 26. Abdul Rauf Azhar was a leader of the Jaish e-Mohammad terror organization who collaborated in Pearl’s abduction with fellow terrorists Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, one of the planners of the 9/11 attacks; and Omar Saeed Sheikh, a Pakistani national who grew up in England and briefly studied at my alma mater, the London School of Economics, before dropping out. Along with the murder of Pearl, Azhar was responsible for the 1999 hijacking of an Indian passenger plane, as well as attacks on the Indian parliament and an Indian army base in 2001 and 2016, respectively.

The significance of Azhar’s elimination now, when antisemitism is raging with far greater intensity than at the time of Pearl’s killing, should not be lost on anyone. During the 23 years that separate the deaths of Pearl and Azhar, Jews have endured insults and vandalism, assault and even murder. Much of this has tracked the troughs and peaks of conflict in the Middle East, especially the Second Lebanon War in 2006, and earlier wars in Gaza in 2008-09, 2014 and 2021.

Not all of the antisemitic outpouring is so closely connected. Some of the worst instances of hatred and violence, like the 2017 torture and murder of Sarah Halimi, an elderly Jewish woman living on her own in public housing in Paris, did not occur at a time of unusually high conflict in the Middle East. Rather, they were a consequence of the demonizing tropes and false claims about Jews that have become embedded in our culture over the course of this century.

We should feel a strong degree of satisfaction at the news that Azhar is dead and therefore unable to ruin the lives of other innocents like Daniel Pearl. However, that’s not the same as full justice, which would involve a comprehensive reckoning by politicians, influencers and thought leaders with the antisemitism that has stained our culture and our civilization. We know, more or less, where all this started. What we don’t know is where it will end.

Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com