Archive | July 2026

Editor’s Notes: Countries didn’t ban athletes from flying to Israel, they let the paperwork do it


Editor’s Notes: Countries didn’t ban athletes from flying to Israel, they let the paperwork do it

ZVIKA KLEIN


A movement that began because Jews were shut out of a gym in Constantinople built games so Jews could always get in. This year, Jews who wanted in were kept out by paperwork of friendly governments.

Israeli participants at the 2026 Maccabiah games, Jerusalem, July 1, 2026. /  (photo credit: Chen G. Schimmel)

In 1930, a group of Jewish men got on motorcycles in Tel Aviv and rode to Europe.

The first Maccabiah was two years off, and there was no way to invite a scattered people to it. No television. Barely radio. So they rode, thousands of kilometers, community to community, knocking on doors: come to the Land of Israel, come compete. Yosef Yekutieli, the teenager who dreamed the games up in the first place, rode with one of the delegations.

A second group went out in 1931, over 9,000 km. to London and back. They went and fetched the Jewish people in person.

I thought about those riders on Wednesday night at Teddy Stadium, from row 9, where I sat with my two boys.

The ceremony was beautiful. It always is. This year’s torch even crossed the country by motorcycle convoy in tribute to those rides, which I’ll admit I only fully appreciated afterward, reading up on the history at one in the morning instead of sleeping.

The Maccabiah Games are back. (credit: RONEN ZVULUN/REUTERS)

Triumphant ceremony opens games

And by every account except mine, it was a triumph. Idan Raichel performed, and next to him sang Daniella Gilboa, who was a hostage in Gaza and on Wednesday stood in front of a full stadium singing to her people. Yuval Raphael, who survived Nova, opened the night. Edan Alexander got a wall of noise.

The Maccabiah banner came in with families of the 12 Druze children killed on the soccer field in Majdal Shams, and one of the torchbearers was Evyatar Zeituni, a paratrooper wounded on October 7 defending Kibbutz Kissufim.

President Isaac Herzog spoke. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke, and there were boos, some. The American section, around 900 of them, was so loud at points you couldn’t hear Michael Harpaz and Montana Tucker calling the parade.

My kids came for the singers, obviously. I came so they would absorb something they can’t get from me at the Shabbat table: that they belong to a people, that Judaism is bigger than our synagogue and our town, that there are Jews in places they’ve never heard of who care about the same things they do. They love sports. This was the night they learned the map that comes with it.

Which is why I couldn’t stop counting flags.

Austria: one athlete. One. Belgium, barely more. South Africa, which for decades sent big, noisy, proud delegations, was down to a handful. And Australia, usually among the largest teams at any Maccabiah, essentially wasn’t there.

The Australian story deserves to be told properly. Maccabi Australia withdrew its whole delegation, roughly 300 athletes and 60 staff who had trained for two years, because Canberra’s travel advice for Israel sits at “do not travel,” the most severe level.

The few Australians who marched came as individuals on borrowed teams. Remember, this is the community that buried four of its own after the bridge collapse at the 1997 games and still came back, game after game. For them, staying home is enormous.

In the stands Wednesday, I heard the rumor version: that some countries have banned their citizens from flying here. Not true, and I checked, because that’s the job.

No government has forbidden anyone anything. What they’ve done is raise advisories to “reconsider travel” or “do not travel,” which voids travel insurance, which makes it legally impossible for a national federation to send a team.

The athletes were never banned. The paperwork did it for everyone, quietly, and nobody had to say the word out loud.

Organizers put the parade at around 5,000 athletes from roughly 35 countries. Four years ago it was 10,000 from about 70. Israel marched more than 2,200, the biggest delegation on the field by a mile. The US came close to a thousand.

In 2022 they brought a sitting president; this time they didn’t need one. And here’s what those two delegations prove, between them: wherever Jews were free to come, they came, in force. So the missing didn’t stay home because their love ran out. An advisory made the trip uninsurable and a federation liable, and that was that.

Some history, because it changes how you read the whole night. The first Maccabi club was founded in 1895 in Constantinople, by Jewish gymnasts who were refused membership in a local sports club for being Jews. They built their own. Out of that came the movement, and out of the movement came the games, and the games of the 1930s picked up a nickname: the Aliyah Olympics. Athletes arrived and didn’t leave.

In 1935, the Bulgarian delegation sailed into Jaffa, 350 people and an orchestra, competed, and stayed. They shipped the equipment home without them. The Maccabiah was a side door into the land at the exact moment the world was bolting its front doors against us. You came for the games and the games became your way home.

There’s a precedent for a Maccabiah defined by absence, and it’s not a comforting one. The 1950 games, the first in the new state, the first after the Holocaust, opened with cannon fire and Yizkor at Ramat Gan.

The great delegations of Polish, Hungarian, Czech, German, Romanian Jews never came. Murdered, most of them. The survivors were behind the Iron Curtain, barred by their own governments from traveling to a Jewish state.

Historians of the games say you could watch the Jewish center of gravity physically move that year, out of Europe, toward the English-speaking world and Israel. Who marched told you where the Jewish people now lived.

Wednesday I stood in Teddy reading the same kind of map. In 1950 the missing were dead or caged by enemies. In 2026 they’re alive, free, and desperate to come, and what stopped them was a form.

There’s another way to read 1950, though. Those games happened in a state that was two years old. Rationing, austerity, survivors arriving faster than anyone could house them. Some of the athletes at Ramat Gan had been in the camps.

The country could barely feed itself, and it held a Maccabiah, because apparently gathering the Jewish people mattered that much even then. Especially then. And that’s the version of the games my kids saw on Wednesday, 76 years later: 2,200 Israelis on the field, a freed hostage on the stage.
Nobody watching the sad little parade of 1950 could have pictured it. Which makes me careful about reading too much doom into 35 flags. We’ve marched short-handed before. Last time it turned out we were just getting started.

Here’s the detail that actually keeps me up, though. Britain, Canada, and South Africa didn’t pull their adult teams first. They pulled the juniors first. The kids. And this is happening while Birthright cohorts and summer programs are suspended on the same insurance logic.

A bond can survive a bad year, fine. But the Maccabiah, like Birthright, is one of the machines that builds the bond in the first place, that takes a 16-year-old from Melbourne or Manchester and makes Israel unimaginable to live without.

Somewhere in Sydney there’s a father who wanted to give his sons the exact night I gave mine, and a risk department decided otherwise. Nobody chose this. That’s what bothers me most. There’s no villain to argue with, just fine print.

A movement that began because Jews were shut out of a gym in Constantinople built games so Jews could always get in. This year, Jews who wanted in were kept out by the paperwork of friendly governments.

The torch went up Wednesday like it always does, and my boys stood on their seats to see it, and it was beautiful, I mean that. On the way out, one of them asked me why some countries had only one athlete. I gave him the short answer. The long answer is this column, and I’m still not sure it’s a good enough one.

The riders of 1930 saw a scattered people and got on motorcycles. In 1950, they held games while new olim – immigrants to Israel – were still in transit camps. I’d like to believe we still have that in us. Watching my boys stand on their seats, I mostly do.


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


San Antonio Mayor, 20 Local Jewish Groups Call for Cancellation of Kanye West July 4 Concert in Texas City


San Antonio Mayor, 20 Local Jewish Groups Call for Cancellation of Kanye West July 4 Concert in Texas City

Shiryn Ghermezian


Rapper Kanye West holds his first rally in support of his presidential bid in North Charleston, South Carolina, US, July 19, 2020. Photo: REUTERS/Randall Hill

The mayor of San Antonio, Texas, along with a coalition of 20 local Jewish organizations have called for the cancellation of a July 4 concert by Ye (formerly known as Kanye West) in the city, after several of his shows worldwide were cancelled due to his past antisemitic actions.

“Military City USA should not host someone with a record of hate speech and antisemitic comments in a city-funded facility like our Alamodome — not ever, and certainly not on July 4th, our Nation’s 250th birthday,” Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones wrote in a social media post on Saturday. “Standing up to antisemitism is exactly what it takes to achieve a more perfect Union.”

Tickets for the concert at the city-owned Alamodome went on sale Thursday and remain available for purchase on Ticketmaster and Ye’s website. The concert is part of Ye’s international tour promoting his new album, “Bully.”

A coalition of Jewish organizations — including the Jewish Federation of San Antonio, the Jewish Community Relations Council, and the Holocaust Memorial Museum of San Antonio – issued a joint statement on Monday urging the city of San Antonio and Alamodome management to “decline the use of the publicly owned venue” for Ye’s July 4 concert and to review the policies and procedures that led to booking the performance.

“This request is not a call for censorship,” the coalition explained in part. “We hold free speech among our most fundamental values, not despite our history, but because of it. Ye has the same constitutional rights as every other American. He is free to speak, and private venues are free to host him. The question before the city is not whether Ye may perform somewhere. It is whether public resources and a publicly owned facility should be used to host and elevate someone whose public conduct has been marked by repeated hate speech.”

“Accountability and growth are possible for anyone, but they must be demonstrated through conduct, not merely proclaimed,” they added. “San Antonio’s values of dignity, inclusion, and respect are best reflected when public institutions refuse to lend public resources to those who repeatedly promote antisemitism and hate.”

Ye will perform twice in Tampa, Florida, later this month before his San Antonio concert. The Grammy winner’s scheduled shows in Tampa have also faced calls for cancellation.

Ye postponed his scheduled performance this summer in Marseille, France, “until further notice” after local officials, including the city’s mayor, said they refused to let him perform. Earlier this month, Ye’s July 25 concert in Prague was cancelled when the venue set to host him pulled out. His scheduled performance this month in Poland was canceled in May by the venue due to “formal and legal reasons.” Poland’s Culture and Heritage Minister Marta Cienkowska supported the decision, saying: “In a country scarred by the history of the Holocaust, we cannot pretend this is just entertainment. Artistic freedom does not mean giving a free pass to everything. Culture cannot be a space for those who exploit it to spread bigotry.”

In April, the United Kingdom banned Ye from entering the country to headline the Wireless Festival in London that was planned for July and as a result, the festival was canceled. Ye was also denied a visa to enter Australia last year.

In a Wall Street Journal ad published in January, Ye apologized for his antisemitic rampage last year, during which he sold shirts with swastikas, released a song titled “Heil Hitler,” and published several antisemitic posts on social media, including one in which he declared, “I’m a Nazi.”


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


Taniec chocholi Polski i Ukrainy do ruskiej muzyki – rozmowa z prof. Alexandrem J. Motylem


Taniec chocholi Polski i Ukrainy do ruskiej muzyki – rozmowa z prof. Alexandrem J. Motylem

Waldemar Piasecki


[Z profesorem ALEXANDREM J. MOTYLEM, wybitnym amerykańskim politologiem, rusologiem i ukrainologiem rozmawia Waldemar Piasecki]

– Jak odbiera Pan decyzję polskiego prezydenta o odebraniu Orderu Orła Białego prezydentowi Ukrainy?

– To błąd. Nawrocki przedłożył historyczne spory nad przetrwanie i bezpieczeństwo Polski (a w dalszej kolejności Ukrainy). W czasie wojny należy skupić się na sprawach o kluczowym znaczeniu – zwycięstwie i uniknięciu klęski – a kwestie historii, kultury itp. odłożyć na bok.

– Było za co odbierać?

– Zdecydowanie nie. Nawrocki powinien był skrytykować Ukraińców i wyrazić ubolewanie, jednocześnie apelując o wzajemne zrozumienie w obliczu wojny i kryzysu. Zamiast tego wybrał populizm – co jest zrozumiałe, ale niefortunne.

– Czy Zełeński miał pełną świadomość co robi, kiedy nazywał jednostkę wojskową imieniem „Bohaterów UPA?”. Czy to był dobry ‘timing’?

– Zełenski powinien był przewidzieć, że taka nazwa może zirytować i rozgniewać część Polaków, niepotrzebnie wywołując napięcia w czasie wojny. Zełenski popełnił błąd taktyczny; Nawrocki również. Niestety, oba te błędy mogą mieć negatywne konsekwencje strategiczne. Nie sądzę, by tak się stało, ale wykluczyć tego się nie da.

– Czy po swojej decyzji, polskich reakcjach protestu oraz zapowiedzi Nawrockiego, że odbierze mu order, Zełeński miał jakieś pole manewru na zmianę tej decyzji? Jeżeli miał, to dlaczego nic nie zrobił?

– Decyzja Nawrockiego o wycofaniu Orła postawiła Zełenskiego w sytuacji bez wyjścia. Zmiana imienia jednostki i przeprosiny sprawiłyby, że w oczach rodaków wyglądałby na słabego. Brak zmian czynił go w oczach Polaków osobą niewrażliwą na ich uzasadnione obawy. Gdyby Nawrocki nie eskalował sytuacji, Zełenski pewnie mógłby zaproponować jakieś kompromisowe rozwiązanie.

– Jakie są reakcje na odebranie orderu na Ukrainie? Po stronie władzy, ale może przede wszystkim zwykłych ludzi? Jak oni to pojmują?

– Ukraińcy uważają, że Orzeł został wręczony nie Zełenskiemu osobiście, lecz prezydentowi narodu, który poniósł ogromne ofiary, by powstrzymać Rosję (i tym samym bronić Polski). W rezultacie wycofanie Orła jest dla Ukrainy obrazą. Poziom dumy jest dokładnie taki sam jak u Polaków.

– Niebawem (25-26 czerwca) ma się odbyć w Gdańsku międzynarodowa konferencja na temat odbudowy Ukrainy po wojnie. Polski rząd włożył ogrom wysiłku, aby to wydarzenie miało miejsce w Gdańsku, a nie jak chciało wielu liderów zachodnich, w Wiedniu. Wpływ na ostateczną lokalizację miała postawa także samego Zełeńskiego. Czy teraz on się tam wybierze?

– Sądzę, że tak. Po pierwsze, dlatego że Ukraina potrzebuje pomocy w odbudowie. Po drugie, to szansa na normalizację stosunków polsko-ukraińskich. A po trzecie, Zachód oczekuje współpracy między Ukrainą a Polską, a nie wzajemnych waśni.

– Wielu komentatorów sceny politycznej uważa, że odebranie orderu właśnie teraz jest po to, aby Zełeński odwołał przyjazd, a konferencja uległa marginalizacji lub w ogóle odwołaniu. Podziela Pan taki pogląd?

– Nie mam wątpliwości, że istnieją siły – w Polsce, na Ukrainie, a przede wszystkim w Rosji – które chcą podważyć relacje polsko-ukraińskie. Mam nadzieję, że zarówno Zełenski, jak i Nawrocki zdają sobie z tego sprawę.

– Fiasko konferencji gdańskiej jest w oczywistym interesie Putina. Pan jest autorem książek ‘political fiction’ o rosyjskim dyktatorze. Czy mieści się w Pana imaginacji, plan uknuty na Kremlu, aby doprowadzić do zimnej wojny polsko-ukraińskiej poprzez uruchomienie tematu UPA w sposób, na jaki Polska będzie musiała zareagować, a w swej reakcji wywołać odpowiedź ukraińską? Czy Rosja mogła taką operację przeprowadzić?

– Rosja zawsze starała się nie dopuścić do współpracy polsko-ukraińskiej, właśnie dlatego, że – jak dostrzegł Jerzy Giedroyc – Polska potrzebuje niepodległej Ukrainy, a Ukraina niepodległej Polski. Byli zdolni uruchomić do tego celu wszelkie swoje zasoby. Nie wiem na ile dziś Moskwa mogłaby być zangżowana w konstrukcję całego obecnego konfliktu, ale nie wątpię, że zrobi wszystko, by utrudnić Nawrockiemu i Zełenskiemu wycofanie się z zajętych stanowisk. Z pewnością nasilą się działania propagandowe oraz finansowe wsparcie dla „piątych kolumn” i sił prorosyjskich.

– Kilka godzin po ogłoszeniu przez prezydenta Nawrockiego swojej decyzji, prezydent Zełeński zakomunikował odesłanie orderu zwykłą pocztą do Warszawy. Poszli w ślad za nim byli prezydenci: Kuczma, Juszczenko i Poroszenko. Zaraz podobne gesty mogą nastąpić po stronie polskiej, a czołowi politycy odsyłać do Kijowa Ordery Księcia Jarosława Mądrego? Do czego to prowadzi?

– Ta „wojna o medale” nikomu nie służy; jest szkodliwa i idiotyczna. Obie strony grają kartą populizmu. Jednocześnie w tym sporze jest coś absurdalnego – a nawet komicznego. Mam nadzieję, że obie strony wyjdą na tym na głupców zachowujących się jak dzieci i że w końcu przestaną tak postępować.

– Co powinno zostać zrobione tu i teraz, aby konflikt ostudzić? Premier Tusk powinien decyzję prezydenta Nawrockiego zaaprobować /czego wymaga polskie prawo/, ale po odesłaniu orderu, nie wydaje się to już konieczne.

– Zełenski i Nawrocki narobili zamieszania; to od nich zależy, czy usiądą przy butelce Wyborowej i porozmawiają. Powinni potem wyjść z tego spotkania z uśmiechem i uściskiem. Niezależnie od tego, czy faktycznie rozwiążą problem i co o sobie myślą.

– Czy konferencja gdańska z udziałem Zełeńskiego powinna się odbyć za wszelką cenę, a kwestię orderu należy odłożyć na później, żeby nie dawać powodów do radości Moskwie i jej agenturze wpływu w Kijowie i Warszawie?

– Konferencja zdecydowanie powinna się odbyć, ale bez udziału gorących głów z obu stron. Mam nadzieję, że Tusk zdoła to osiągnąć. Z kolei Nawrocki i Zełenski powinni zachować życzliwość i wzajemny szacunek, a po zakończeniu wojny zainicjować szczerą dyskusję na temat UPA, Armii Krajowej (AK), Wołynia itp.

– Jak na to wszystko patrzy Ameryka? Coś z tego rozumie?

– Amerykanie w swej ogromnej większości nie znają ani nie rozumieją własnej historii, a co dopiero tak „egzotycznego” zagadnienia, jak konflikt polsko-ukraiński sięgający w przeszłość, kiedy Putin realnie zagraża dziś. Większość Amerykanów pragmatycznie poradziłaby Polsce i Ukrainie, by dorosły i skupiły się na przetrwaniu.

– W osiemdziesiątą rocznicę tragedii Wołynia sfomułował Pan tezę, że tragedia ta woła o… moratorium.

– Owszem. Mówiłem wtedy, że obie strony są wyjątkowo krótkowzroczne, uparte i samobójcze. Mówiłem, że obecnie i na przyszłość zarówno Ukraina, jak i Polska mają lub powinny mieć jeden nadrzędny priorytet: ludobójczą wojnę Rosji i jej imperialistyczny program wobec Europy Wschodniej. Jeśli Rosja pokona Ukrainę i zaatakuje Polskę, wszelkie spory na temat Wołynia staną się dyskusyjne. Zatem obie strony powinny ogłosić moratorium na polityczne eksploatowanie tragedii wołyńskiej do czasu zakończenia wojny. Taki powinien być aktualny priorytet naszych relacji! Tragedia wołyńska o to woła. Niestety wszystko poszło inną drogą ku radości Putina.

– Co teraz?

– Putin jest na dobrej drodze do podzielenia Polski i Ukrainy oraz Polaków i Ukraińców. Jest gotów na niemal każdą cenę, aby to się powiodło. Dlatego apeluję do Polski i Ukrainy o opamiętanie w swych wzajemnych historycznych kompleksach i fobiach oraz obecnych emocjach i animozjach. Kończcie ten taniec chocholi do ruskiej muzyki. Póki nie jest za późno.

– Dziękuję za rozmowę.


Prof. Alexander J. Motyl jest jednym z najwybitniejszych amerykańskich politologów, sowietologów i specjalistów od tematyki ukraińskiej. Zajmuje się ponadto zagadnieniami nacjonalizmu, rewolucji i imperiów. Jest jednym z najbardziej znanych Amerykanów pochodzenia ukraińskiego. Urodził się w Nowym Jorku w pochodzącej ze Lwowa rodzinie ukraińskiej, której udało się wydostać ze Związku Sowieckiego. Ukończył elitarną jezuicką Regis Heigh School na Manhattanie i studia historyczne w Columbia University (1975) i tam też się doktoryzował z nauk politycznych (1984). Wykładał na uniwersytetach Columbia, Lehigh i Harvardzie, a obecnie jest profesorem nauk politycznych na Rutgers University w Newarku. Jest autorem wielu książek oraz poetą i artystą malarzem.


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


Palestinian Authority News Agency Hides Terror Attack, and Says All of Israel Is Occupied ‘Territory’


Palestinian Authority News Agency Hides Terror Attack, and Says All of Israel Is Occupied ‘Territory’

Ephraim D. Tepler and Itamar Marcus


Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas attends a virtual meeting, in the West Bank city of Ramallah, Sept. 3, 2020. Photo: Alaa Badarneh / Pool / File photo via Reuters.

In one article, the official Palestinian Authority (PA) news agency, WAFA, did three things at once: It hid a Palestinian knife attack, denied Israel’s existence by calling Lod part of the “1948 territories,” and exploited Arab-sector crime statistics to incriminate Israel for violence it did not commit.

Headline: “Israeli police kill young man in Lod”

“A young Palestinian man, identified as Sami Ahmed Ja’sous, in his twenties, was killed on Wednesday after being shot by Israeli police in the city of Lod inside the territories of 1948 [i.e., PA euphemism for Israel].

This marks the sixth person killed by police in the city since the beginning of the year.

The killing comes amid increasing reports of excessive force by Israeli police in Arab towns inside the 1948 territories, with repeated calls for transparent and independent investigations into such incidents.

Arab communities inside Israel have also witnessed a rise in violence and homicide cases in recent years, including shootings and stabbings. Earlier on Wednesday, two separate incidents in Basma and Shfaram left two more young men dead, bringing the total number of killings since the beginning of the year to 139.”

[WAFA, official PA news agency, English edition, July 1, 2026]

WAFA reported that “Israeli police kill young man in Lod,” presenting the incident entirely as a case of police violence against Arabs in Israel.

WAFA, however, omitted the central fact that Sami Ahmed Ja’sous was carrying a knifeignored police orders to stop, ran toward officers, and attempted to stab them before he was shot.

This also followed a woman’s call to the police emergency line to report that Ja’sous was holding a knife near the Lod municipality area.

By completely omitting anything about the knife and attempted stabbing, WAFA transformed a violent attack on officers into a story of an innocent “young Palestinian man” killed by Israel.

This is a frequent PA libel technique: remove the Palestinian violence, preserve only the Israeli response, and then present Israel as the aggressor.

WAFA also twice described Lod as being “inside the territories of 1948,” which is Palestinian terminology used to avoid saying “Israel,” thereby denying Israel’s legitimacy within any borders.

Lod is an Israeli city inside the internationally recognized State of Israel, but WAFA’s wording presents all of Israel as “occupied” Palestinian land from 1948, the year of modern Israel’s establishment.

Finally, WAFA misleadingly connected the police shooting to the broader crisis of violence in Arab towns, citing shootings and stabbings in Basma and Shfar’am and the reported total of 139 killings since the beginning of the year. 

However, those figures refer not to police shootings but to internal Arab-sector violence, primarily between gangs, as well as to interfamily feuds — some of which have been going on for decades, and even to so-called honor killings. By placing Arab-on-Arab crime immediately after the Lod incident, the PA news agency insinuated Israeli responsibility for unrelated criminal violence within Arab communities.

Palestinian Media Watch reported just a month ago that the PA regularly portrays Arab-sector murders as an Israeli “conspiracy” and even “directed” by Israel.

This WAFA article follows the same script and goes even further, again showing how the PA has made a policy of pinning the blame on Israel for every internal Palestinian and Israeli-Arab problem.


Ephraim D. Tepler is a contributor to Palestinian Media Watch (PMW). Itamar Marcus is the Founder and Director of PMW, where a version of this article first appeared.


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


China Launches ICBM, Sanders Proposes Disarmament


China Launches ICBM, Sanders Proposes Disarmament

Gordon G. Chang


  • China’s military activities have become far more brazen. Some Americans, unfortunately, have not noticed. For instance, Senators Edward Markey and Bernie Sanders introduced the Smarter Approach to Nuclear Expenditures Act last September.
  • Richard Fisher of the International Assessment and Strategy Center looks at the rapid increase in delivery platforms, such as missiles and submarines, and believes China will have 7,000 [nuclear warheads].
  • [I]f the United States is to possess a deterrent, it will have to carry through with existing plans to simultaneously modernize all three legs of its nuclear “triad”: missiles housed in land-based silos, weapons launched from submarines, and nukes carried by bombers and fighters.
  • The U.S. does not need to match the number of China’s and Russia’s nukes or delivery systems, but it does need to maintain a credible deterrent. Markey proposes to reduce “deployed strategic warheads from approximately 1,500 to 1,000.”
  • Markey’s proposal would create an imbalance that might tempt a bold or desperate aggressor to think it could, by making threats to launch, intimidate the U.S. into not defending an ally or friend. Russian President Vladimir Putin made such threats both before and after the start of his ongoing “special military operation” against Ukraine.
  • More ominously, the test told the world of Chinese plans. Various publications have said that the test showed China’s second-strike — retaliatory — ability, but it also demonstrated something else. “This test clearly indicates China’s intent to obtain a first-strike capability,” said James Fanell, a former U.S. Navy captain who served as director of Intelligence and Information Operations for the U.S. Pacific Fleet, to this publication.
  • What will deter our enemies from launching nuclear first-strikes? Perhaps a sea-launched nuclear-armed cruise missile, a Golden Dome missile-defense system, or “any number of new technologies and strategies,” Peter Huessy of the National Institute for Deterrence Studies wrote shortly before China’s missile launch.
  • One thing Huessy knows will not work: “unilateral restraint that does not take such threats seriously in the first place.”

China’s military activities have become far more brazen. On July 6, a Chinese Navy submarine launched either a JL-2 or JL-3 nuclear-capable, intercontinental ballistic missile, the first known Chinese submarine-launched missile test since 1982. Pictured: JL-3 missiles are displayed at a military parade in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square on September 3, 2025. (Photo by Pedro Pardo/AFP via Getty Images)

On July 6, a Chinese Navy submarine launched either a JL-2 or JL-3 nuclear-capable, intercontinental ballistic missile.

The missile, traveling in a southeasterly direction and carrying a mock warhead, landed in the Pacific Ocean, in the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone.

The launch was the first known Chinese submarine-launched missile test since 1982 and the first ever from a Chinese nuclear-powered sub.

“China’s long-range ballistic missile launch wasn’t just a routine drill,” the House Select Committee on China posted on X on July 6. “It was yet another act of CCP aggression toward our allies and like-minded partners in the Indo-Pacific.”

“Beijing is testing global patience to its absolute limit with an alarming nuclear-capable escalation directly in the Pacific,” commented the UnveiledChina site on X.

The official Xinhua News Agency called the launch “a routine arrangement of the annual training of the PLA Navy” and declared it was “not directed at any specific country or target.”

Whether targeting any specific country or not, China’s military activities have become far more brazen. Some Americans, unfortunately, have not noticed. For instance, Senators Edward Markey and Bernie Sanders introduced the Smarter Approach to Nuclear Expenditures Act last September.

The SANE Act, as they call it, “would reduce wasteful nuclear weapons programs and generate tens of billions of dollars in cost savings.”

“It is time to halt the proliferation of wasteful nuclear weapons programs and create a future that is safe from the dangers of nuclear conflict,” Markey stated. “Under Trump, the United States is inviting a new nuclear arms race that will endanger the lives of Americans as well as all those around the world.”

The United States is “inviting a new nuclear arms race”? The number of deployed warheads of China, Russia, and North Korea — perhaps 6,100 — outstrips that of the U.S., Britain, and France by about 460.

China, for one, is on a tear. It could possess far more than the 620 warheads as currently estimated.

The current number, however, is not the issue. “I don’t think I’ve seen anything more disturbing in my career than the Chinese ongoing expansion of their nuclear force,” said Frank Kendall when he was secretary of the Air Force in House testimony in March 2023.

“We are witnessing a strategic breakout by China,” Admiral Charles Richard, then commander of U.S. Strategic Command in 2021, said.

The Pentagon, in a November 2022 report, forecast that China would quadruple warheads from about 400 then to 1,500 by 2035.

That is an underestimation. James Howe, the noted nuclear analyst, predicts China will have between 3,390 and 3,740 weapons by that year. Richard Fisher of the International Assessment and Strategy Center looks at the rapid increase in delivery platforms, such as missiles and submarines, and believes China will have 7,000.

Whatever estimate turns out to be correct, it is simply wrong to think, as Markey does, that the United States is to blame for an arms race. In fact, America has not been looking to increase the number of warheads.

America does plan to spend substantial sums on its arsenal. Markey reports “approximately $1 trillion over the next decade.” But if the United States is to possess a deterrent, it will have to carry through with existing plans to simultaneously modernize all three legs of its nuclear “triad”: missiles housed in land-based silos, weapons launched from submarines, and nukes carried by bombers and fighters.

All three legs of the U.S. nuclear deterrent are aging; in many cases delivery systems are already beyond useful lives. Parts of the arsenal now cost more to sustain than to replace.

The big spend is not “wasteful,” and it is not driven by Washington. It is driven by Beijing.

There are now no more bilateral arms agreements with Russia. The last one, known as “New START,” expired in February. The U.S. did not renew it because of blatant Russian violations and China’s refusal to engage in arms-control talks. With Russia and China cooperating militarily, the U.S. is outnumbered.

The U.S. does not need to match the number of China’s and Russia’s nukes or delivery systems, but it does need to maintain a credible deterrent. Markey proposes to reduce “deployed strategic warheads from approximately 1,500 to 1,000.”

Markey’s proposal would create an imbalance that might tempt a bold or desperate aggressor to think it could, by making threats to launch, intimidate the U.S. into not defending an ally or friend. Russian President Vladimir Putin made such threats both before and after the start of his ongoing “special military operation” against Ukraine.

Is China also thinking of making threats of this sort? Beijing could have tested this missile anywhere, but its choice says much about its intentions. As the Lexington Institute’s Rebecca Grant told Gatestone, “Beijing could not have picked a more obnoxious flight path.”

The missile, for instance, overflew what the Chinese call the First Island and Second Island Chains and was aimed in the general direction of Fiji, which on the same day signed a landmark defense pact with Australia. The agreement had angered Beijing.

More ominously, the test told the world of Chinese plans. Various publications have said that the test showed China’s second-strike — retaliatory — ability, but it also demonstrated something else. “This test clearly indicates China’s intent to obtain a first-strike capability,” said James Fanell, a former U.S. Navy captain who served as director of Intelligence and Information Operations for the U.S. Pacific Fleet, to this publication.

What will deter our enemies from launching nuke first-strikes? Perhaps a sea-launched nuclear-armed cruise missile, a Golden Dome missile-defense system, or “any number of new technologies and strategies,” Peter Huessy of the National Institute for Deterrence Studies wrote shortly before China’s missile launch.

One thing Huessy knows will not work: “unilateral restraint that does not take such threats seriously in the first place.”


Gordon G. Chang is the author of Plan Red: China’s Project to Destroy America, a Gatestone Institute distinguished senior fellow, and a member of its Advisory Board.


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