COMMENTARY / OPINION
Qatar Captures Northwestern, Univ. of Rochester Denies Reality, & Iran Loses at Princeton By Winfield Myers
Sep 8, 2025 Middle East Forum
A new report by MEF’s Benjamin Baird details how Qatar’s investment of $737 million ideologically captured Northwestern University’s campuses in both Evanston, IL, and Doha, Qatar. It recommends federal action, including enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, investigations under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), and congressional oversight of the university’s foreign funding arrangements.
A.J. Caschetta relates that the Univ. of Rochester denied that the viciously antisemitic, pro-Hamas organization Students for Justice in Palestine exists on its campus despite the mounds of evidence to the contrary he produced. Benjamin Weinthal spells out why Princeton finally parted ways with Iranian henchman Seyed Hossein Mousavian.
Benjamin Baird has the goods on CAIR’s outrage that Baird’s July MEF report succeeded in convincing the Dept. of Homeland Security to stop funding terrorist-linked Islamist groups. We also feature the work of Giulio Meotti, Abdullah Bozkurt, and Raymond Ibrahim.
Qatar-Funded Northwestern Employs Hamas Money Launderer to Teach U.S. Students By: Benjamin Baird
A in-depth Middle East Forum investigation released today slams Northwestern University for employing a professor involved in Hamas money laundering at its Qatar campus.
Why it matters: Northwestern’s $737 million Qatar investment since 2007 has fostered a hostile environment for Jewish students, violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA).
- MEF public affairs specialist Benjamin Baird said that “this investigation reveals that Northwestern’s partnership with Qatar extends far beyond financial support into ideological capture.”
- The university’s complicity with Qatari laws challenges its commitment to American academic values and endangers campus safety.
Driving the news: Following the damning report, Northwestern faces a $790 million federal funding freeze and intense congressional scrutiny for antisemitism.
- President Michael Schill’s resignation underscores the gravity of the situation and the urgent need for reform.
Details: Ibrahim Abusharif, who teaches at the Qatar campus, was co-founder of an organization that laundered over $1 million to Hamas.
- Contracts with Qatar legally bind Northwestern’s campuses in Evanston and Doha to silence, prohibiting criticism of the Qatari regime and compromising academic freedom.
What’s next: The Middle East Forum demands stringent federal action, including Title VI CRA enforcement and probing foreign funding under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, to safeguard Jewish students and uphold institutional integrity.
To read the press release, click here; to read the full report, click here.
Addressing Campus SJP Problems, Part 2: Denial at the University of Rochester By: A.J. Caschetta
The University of Rochester (UofR) denies the existence of a Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter, despite conclusive evidence to the contrary.
Why it matters: The university’s denial contradicts archived records showing an officially-recognized SJP chapter from 2020 to 2023.
- The administration’s actions could affect its credibility and lead to scrutiny under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Driving the news: UofR claims no SJP chapter exists, yet communications between the administration and the “derecognized” chapter reveal ongoing interactions.
- The chapter, though “derecognized,” remains active, hosting events and protests on campus.
Details: Archived pages and social media posts confirm the SJP chapter’s presence and activities at UofR.
- The administration’s attempts to silence critiques about its handling of SJP issues suggest deeper institutional challenges.
What’s next: UofR—unable to silence the author—must address past policy failures and improve transparency to rebuild trust and avoid further scrutiny.
To read the full article, click here.
ICYMI: “The Battle for the Jewish State” with Victoria Coates
The October 7, 2023 Hamas assault on Israel shocked the world with its brutality. While many condemned the attack, others rapidly rushed to blame Israel, framing the Jewish state as an oppressor through the lens of Marxist ideology and critical race theory. In The Battle for the Jewish State, Victoria Coates examines how Hamas’s atrocities, Iran’s role, and America’s cultural drift have imperiled Israel and the U.S. Is this conflict truly about land, or is it part of a broader civilizational struggle? What is at stake for both Israel and the United States if this battle is lost?
Victoria Coates is Vice President of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation. A former Deputy National Security Advisor to President Trump, she oversaw U.S. policy on the Middle East, including the Maximum Pressure Campaign on Iran and early negotiations for the Abraham Accords. She holds a B.A. from Trinity College, an M.A. from Williams College, and a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania, all in art history.
To watch the full podcast episode, click here.
Islamic Republic of Iran Loses Its Man at Princeton By: Benjamin Weinthal
In November 2023, Iranian-Americans launched a campaign to remove Seyed Hossein Mousavian from Princeton University, citing his links to Iranian dissident assassinations and nuclear weapons development.
Why it matters: Mousavian’s alleged role in the “Chain Murders” of Iranian dissidents in Europe and his involvement in Iran’s nuclear ambitions have drawn significant criticism.
- The Alliance Against the Islamic Regime of Iran Apologists (AAIRIA) revealed Mousavian’s “retirement” from Princeton as of June 1, aligning with increased scrutiny of his past activities.
Driving the news: A 2004 interview with Mousavian confirmed Iran’s persistent nuclear ambitions, reinforcing accusations against him.
- Mousavian, a key negotiator in Iran’s nuclear talks, has maintained controversial positions on uranium enrichment.
- Despite mounting evidence that Mousavian’s presence at Princeton tainted the school, emboldened Tehran, and endangered U.S. interests, university president Christopher Eisgruber steadfastly defended Mousavian from criticism.
Details: Mousavian’s tenure as Iran’s Ambassador to Germany is marked by alleged involvement in state-sponsored assassinations, including the 1992 Mykonos restaurant attack.
- A 1997 Berlin court testimony linked him to these crimes, intensifying calls for his prosecution.
What’s next: The Iranian-American activist organization now seeks Mousavian’s deportation to Europe, where he could face prosecution for his alleged role in the “Chain Murders.” The 24 victims of Mousavian’s scorched-earth campaign on European soil deserve genuine accountability.
To read the full article, click here.
Hamas-Aligned CAIR Outraged after DHS Cuts Funding to Terror-Linked Islamist Groups By: Benjamin Baird
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has slashed $8 million in security grants to Muslim American groups linked to alleged terrorist activities, following a report revealing $25 million in past grants to such organizations.
Why it matters: The decision addresses concerns raised by the Middle East Forum’s report on DHS funding of terror-linked groups, challenging the integrity of the Nonprofit Security Grant Program.
- The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a prominent Muslim nonprofit that placed American communities at risk when it helped extremist groups apply for security funding, dismissed the July 21 MEF report on which DHS’s action was based as “ravings.”
Driving the news: CAIR, previously promoting the security program, now accuses the government of cutting funds due to “criticism of Israel’s genocide.”
- Published findings show no evidence of political criticism leading to disqualification but cite antisemitic sermons and conspiracies at government-funded mosques.
Details: MEF’s above-mentioned July report detailed funds to organizations tied to Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah.
- The lion’s share of this funding was allocated through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which administered grants for security improvements to houses of worship, such as bulletproof glass, surveillance cameras, and armed security guards.
- FEMA grants were used for security improvements at radical mosques, likened to funding Branch Davidians before the Waco siege.
What’s next: Although Trump’s DHS may have cut the cord on subsidized security at radical nonprofits, there’s nothing to stop the next administration from resuming these harmful practices.
- To ensure this chapter of mismanagement is never repeated, Congress members must act decisively, enshrining rigorous oversight and ironclad vetting into law.
- They can start by banning government partnerships with terrorist-supporting front organizations like CAIR.
To read the full article, click here.
Dear Europeans, If You Don’t like Islamization, Please Leave By: Giulio Meotti
Interim mayor Saliha Raïss of Molenbeek, one of the municipalities in the Brussels region, dismisses critics of Islamization, telling them to “leave,” a move highlighting the increasing sway of Islamism in Europe.
Why it matters: Raïss’s statement, “If Molenbeek is unbearable, leave!” reflects a broader acceptance of political Islam that threatens Western values.
- Elon Musk amplified these comments on X, warning, “If tolerance means the end of Western civilization, then we cannot be tolerant.”
Driving the news: Raïss’s leadership signals a worrying trend where Islamist agendas overshadow secular principles, as evidenced by former Doctors Without Borders head Alain Destexhe’s observations of Brussels’ societal decline.
- Destexhe notes, “Every day, the country is shaken by an incident related to Palestine, the Islamization of society, or antisemitism—three elements linked together.”
Details: Molenbeek’s demographic shift to a majority Muslim population has led to the closure of synagogues as Jews fled and a climate of intolerance, with antisemitic and anti-Western slogans becoming commonplace.
- Raïss’s rhetoric is a capitulation to Islamist demands and demonstrates the failure of the ideology of multiculturalism.
What’s next: Either Europe wakes up, accepts that there are lost territories in Europe and tries to reconquer them while saving what remains, or Europeans will have to resign to Saliha Raïss and leave.
To read the full article, click here.
Turks Among Top Groups Stripped of French Citizenship over Jihadist Terror Links By: Abdullah Bozkurt
In the past decade, French authorities have stripped Franco-Turkish nationals of citizenship for terrorism charges linked to jihadist groups such as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and al-Qaeda.
Why it matters: Turkey’s Islamist government under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has actively supported jihadist affiliations, drawing criticism for its destabilizing influence.
- Erdoğan’s policies embolden radical elements, making Franco-Turks susceptible to extremism and compromising Western security.
Driving the news: Erdoğan’s government fuels anti-Islamic accusations against France, polarizing Franco-Turkish nationals and straining diplomatic relations.
- His administration strategically manipulates Turkish nationals abroad to serve geopolitical interests, exacerbating tensions.
Details: France uses Articles 25 and 25-1 of the Civil Code to revoke the citizenship of individuals like Ünzile Nur Sert for posing national security threats.
- These measures highlight the challenge of countering extremism while addressing the covert influence of Erdoğan’s regime.
What’s next: France remains vigilant in safeguarding its national security, while the international community scrutinizes Turkey’s role in fostering jihadism.
To read the full article, click here.
Egypt’s War on Christian Memory By: Raymond Ibrahim
The historic Church of the Virgin Mary in Rashid, Egypt, faces destruction by influential figures, highlighting systemic attacks on Egypt’s Christian heritage.
Why it matters: The attempts to erase the church’s identity, led by sons of a high-ranking judge, expose the vulnerability of Christian sites in Egypt, where legal protections often go unenforced.
- Egypt’s Christians, despite being indigenous, are treated as second-class citizens, with their heritage under constant threat.
Driving the news: Police intervention halted the church’s demolition, but Coptic leaders remain vocal about the ongoing injustices, as seen in Father Luka Asaad’s public stand despite personal risk.
- The destruction coincides with the demolition of a licensed Coptic cemetery wall, further illustrating the double standard in protecting religious sites.
Details: The church, a 19th-century monument, has faced piecemeal destruction since 2009, with opportunists exploiting legal loopholes to claim ownership and dismantle it.
- Meanwhile, mosques receive untouchable status, underscoring the systemic bias within Egypt’s governance.
What’s next: The Rashid incident is part of a broader pattern across Egypt, where Christian sites face neglect, closure, or destruction, demanding international attention and action to preserve Egypt’s Christian heritage.
To read the full article, click here.
Rightists and Turkish Secularists Oppose Shariah in Austria By: Jules Gomes
Critics warn of “parallel justice.”
Spain Flags Ankara’s Growing Role in Sanctions Evasion for Russia By: Abdullah Bozkurt
Goods were brought into Turkey, repackaged as Turkish exports, and then shipped onwards to Russia to sidestep EU trade restrictions.
Iranian Regime Falters as Sponsored Concert Backfires By: Mardo Soghom
Social media campaigns urged people to attend the concert and seize the chance to chant anti-government slogans.
Thank you for relying on the Middle East Forum for up-to-date analyses of the region. If you enjoyed this issue of the MEF Dispatch, please forward it to a friend. We invite you to use the comments feature to let us know your thoughts on the Dispatch and the issues we cover.
Sincerely,
Winfield Myers
Managing Editor, Middle East Forum
Director, Campus Watch
Too many people still don’t understand Palestinian culture. JOSHUA HOFFMAN
Until the international community confronts this culture of celebrating violence and death, they will never understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
SEP 08, 2025 The Future of Jewish
Six Israelis were murdered on Monday and 12 more were wounded, six of them seriously, when a pair of Palestinian terrorists opened fire on vehicles and pedestrians in Jerusalem.
The two gunmen, residents of the West Bank, arrived at the junction shortly after 10 a.m. and opened fire at people waiting at a bus stop, as well at a bus that had just stopped there.
Of course, Hamas praised the deadly attack, calling it a “heroic operation.”
Such incidents are part of a grim escalation since the Israel-Hamas war began on October 7, 2023, when thousands of Hamas-led terrorists invaded southern Israel, murdering some 1,200 people and abducting 251. Since then, more than 50 Israelis have been killed in terror attacks across Israel and the West Bank.
In January 2024, Israel faced an attempted infiltration near Hebron, as well as a deadly vehicle-ramming in Ra’anana that left one person dead and many others injured. Just a month later, in February, gunmen opened fire at a gas station near Eli, killing at least two Israelis.
In March, three Israelis were stabbed at a Gan Yavne mall by a Palestinian employed there illegally; one later died of his wounds. By mid-2024, the toll mounted further with a fatal shooting in Qalqilya, injuries near Nablus, and other targeted assaults on individuals simply going about their daily lives.
The violence reached a particularly gruesome peak in August 2024, when a Jewish settler was beaten to death with a hammer near Kedumim. That same month saw a drive-by shooting on Route 90, a series of car bombs near Hebron, and the killing of Israeli police officers in yet another attack. In October, seven Israelis were murdered — including a mother shielding her infant son — in a stabbing and shooting rampage in Tel Aviv.
In November and December, terrorists opened fire on a bus near Ariel, wounding eight, while additional car-ramming and shooting incidents near Hebron and al-Khader left multiple casualties, including the death of a child.
In January 2025, three Palestinian gunmen linked to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad ambushed a bus and two cars on Highway 55 in the northern West Bank. Their coordinated assault left three Israelis dead and eight wounded. In February, multiple buses in central Israel were found rigged with explosives, but failed to detonate. One device carried the message “Revenge from Tulkarem” — a city in the West Bank.
In May, a pregnant Israeli woman was shot en route to the hospital; she died, though her baby survived via emergency C-section. And in July, two Palestinian Authority officers carried out a combined shooting and stabbing in Gush Etzion, killing one Israeli.
The truth is, these examples could go on endlessly. In Israel, terrorism is not an exception but a constant — buses, synagogues, restaurants, sidewalks: the everyday spaces of Jewish life are turned into theaters of bloodshed.
And yet, outside Israel, these horrors barely register. They flicker across the local press and then vanish. The world moves on as though Israelis possess a strange superhuman capacity to absorb the unbearable. This erasure is not accidental. It is the product of selective perception.
When a Palestinian drives his car into civilians at a bus stop or when a teenager pulls a knife on Jewish pedestrians, it is rarely described as terrorism. Instead, the world is fed euphemisms: a “lone wolf,” a “response to occupation” — as though stabbing strangers were a form of political dialogue. In such coverage, Jewish victims are reduced to footnotes, their humanity erased by framing that turns killers into “resistance fighters” and the dead into mere consequences.
But this pattern is not new. Palestinian terrorism against Jews is part of a long, unbroken continuum of violence that stretches back more than a century. Before the modern State of Israel was even founded, Jews were murdered in the Hebron massacre of 1929, targeted in pogroms across Europe, and attacked during the Arab riots of the 1930s. The decades that followed saw airplane hijackings, suicide bombings in buses and cafes during the Second Intifada, and knife intifadas in the 2010s.
Under longtime dictator Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority’s “Martyr Fund” will now pay $400 per month, for life, to each family of the terrorists who perpetrated today’s Jerusalem attack.1
We are often told to distinguish between “ordinary Palestinians” and the terrorists who carry out attacks. But how much of that distinction holds up to scrutiny? Terrorism does not grow in a vacuum. It requires infrastructure: communities that shelter the perpetrators, celebrate their “martyrdom,” and raise children on a steady diet of glorified violence.
When someone carries out a school shooting in the United States, mainstream American society does not glorify the shooter. But when a Palestinian terrorist carries out an attack, the killer’s face is plastered on posters, their name is given to public squares, their families receive stipends, and their funerals are celebrated like national holidays. Instead of being treated as pariahs, they are elevated as martyrs and role models for the next generation.
Is this the behavior of a society fundamentally opposed to terrorism, or one complicit in sustaining it? Does this kind of culture make terror an aberration, or an aspiration?
It is not simply Hamas or Islamic Jihad that perpetuate this cycle; it is the cultural ecosystem that normalizes them. Polls routinely show large segments of the Palestinian population supporting attacks on Israeli civilians. Streets, schools, and sports tournaments are named after men who blew up buses or stabbed children. In living rooms, attacks are sometimes celebrated with sweets. These are not fringe behaviors; they are woven into daily life, creating an atmosphere where murderers are heroes and victims are afterthoughts.
So, when analysts reassure us that the “ordinary Palestinian” is different from the terrorist, what they really mean is that the ordinary Palestinian is not holding the weapon, at least not today. But if that same “ordinary” person condones the knife, cheers the bloodshed, and supports those who orchestrate it, the moral distinction becomes much harder to maintain. Terrorism is not just the act of the few; it is the tolerance, silence, and approval of the many.
Internationally, Palestinian terrorism is often framed as a desperate bid for “liberation,” as though every bullet fired at a Jewish child or every bus bombing is a cry for freedom. But if the goal were truly liberation, the pattern of Palestinian violence outside Israel makes no sense. For decades, Palestinian groups have turned their weapons not only on Israelis but also on the very Arab countries that hosted them.
Take Jordan, for example. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Palestinians expanded into a parallel war against the Jordanian monarchy itself. They hijacked planes, assassinated officials, and even attempted to overthrow King Hussein’s government. The result was Black September in 1970, when the Jordanian army expelled the Palestine Liberation Organization after a bloody civil war that left thousands of Palestinians and Jordanians dead.
Or look at Lebanon. When the Palestine Liberation Organization was driven out of Jordan, it moved into southern Lebanon, where it set up a mini-state and waged war not only against Israel but also against Lebanese Christians, Muslims, and Druze. Palestinian militias became a central driver of the Lebanese Civil War, dragging the country into chaos, igniting sectarian bloodshed, and devastating the society.
In 1992, Denmark took in 321 Palestinian refugees. When the government reviewed their status in 2019, it found that nearly two-thirds — 64 percent — had criminal records.
If Palestinian terrorism was purely about “liberation,” it would target only Israel. But history shows a different reality. Mainstream Palestinian society carries an ideology of perpetual struggle, turning even their allies into enemies the moment they refuse to submit. The truth is uncomfortable: Palestinian terrorism has less to do with building a free state and more to do with sustaining a culture of destruction.
What we are witnessing today is, unfortunately, not unprecedented. Rather, it is the latest chapter in a history where Jewish life is treated as expendable.
This continuity has produced something even more sinister: the normalization of Jewish death. Terror attacks against Israelis have been turned into background noise — tragedies absorbed into the daily rhythm of the conflict, as though they were inevitable and unworthy of shock. The same act of terror that would paralyze London, New York, or Paris for weeks is treated as “just another day” in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv.
When a bombing happens in Europe, landmarks light up with colors of solidarity, hashtags trend, and global leaders declare their unity against extremism. But when Jews are murdered in Israel, the silence is deafening, broken only by vague mentions of “cycles of violence” that imply moral equivalence between victim and attacker.
The language of the media fuels this erasure. The words chosen — “militants,” “clashes,” “escalations” — rob the events of moral clarity. Terrorism becomes politics, murder becomes grievance. Reporters and analysts devote more space to explaining the supposed motivations of attackers than to memorializing the lives of their victims. The result is a narrative that subtly recasts killers as actors in a struggle and victims as unfortunate props in someone else’s story.
This distortion is made worse by the double standard of human rights. Palestinian suffering is described in the language of universal justice, while Jewish suffering is treated as a byproduct of conflict. Human rights for Palestinians are endlessly championed; human rights for Jews are invisible. The refusal to call Jewish victims “victims” is not just semantic; it is dehumanization dressed up as empathy.
Meanwhile, the psychological toll on Israelis is profound. Parents put their children on school buses knowing those very buses are targets. Families walk through markets or board trains with the quiet calculation of where to run if gunfire erupts. Soldiers, teachers, shopkeepers, and students all live with the unspoken awareness that daily routines take place under the shadow of terrorism. This is the human cost behind the headlines that never make it beyond Israel’s borders: not just deaths, but the quiet terror of life lived in anticipation of the next attack.
And yet, the world refuses to learn a simple truth: What begins with Jews never ends with Jews. The terror tactics pioneered in Israel (suicide bombings, knife attacks, car rammings) have been exported and copied across the globe. To ignore them in Israel is to allow them to metastasize elsewhere. Israel is the front line in a broader war against terrorism, and those who dismiss Israeli suffering are not just indifferent to Jews but blind to the dangers facing themselves.
The irony is chilling: The Jewish People, history’s perennial scapegoats, are again treated as the exception. We are the only victims whose tragedies are rationalized, whose deaths are explained away as deserved. Some argue this is not deliberate, just the byproduct of fatigue or competing headlines.
But ask yourself: How often do you see headlines about Israelis stabbed, shot, or blown apart on their way to synagogue, school, or work? How often do these stories receive the same urgency, the same empathy, as similar attacks in the West? Why do “human rights” apply everywhere, except when Jews are the victims?
The answer is uncomfortable. Acknowledging Jewish suffering would require reckoning with centuries of double standards. It is easier to dismiss Jews as privileged or powerful than to admit they remain vulnerable targets of hate. It is easier to redefine terrorism in Israel as something less than terror than to confront what it says about our moral compass. Silence is not neutrality. Silence is complicity.
There is an old thought experiment: “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” Today, we might reframe it: “If a terrorist attack happens in Israel and the world does not cover it, did it really happen?”
It is rhetorical, of course, but it captures the paradox of our information age: a time when everything is recorded, streamed, and shared, and yet entire tragedies can vanish into the abyss of selective reporting.
When a bus is riddled with bullets, a family gunned down, or a bomb explodes outside a synagogue, the absence of coverage is more than omission. It robs the dead of dignity and the living of solidarity. It tells the world that some lives matter less, some victims are unworthy of empathy. This is not merely a failure of journalism. It is a failure of morality. By choosing silence, people do not just overlook the violence; they normalize it.
From Pagers to Eyeglasses: Israel’s Next Frontier in Covert Warfare? By Mordechai Sones
Strategic analysis of technological feasibility, legal ramifications, and geopolitical drivers behind potential weaponization of optical devices, one year after 2024 Hezbollah pager attacks
September 8, 2025 Jewish Home News
A New Paradigm in Asymmetric Warfare
In September 2024, the world watched as Israel executed one of the most audacious and technologically sophisticated covert operations in modern history. The simultaneous detonation of thousands of pagers across Lebanon and Syria dealt a stunning blow to Hezbollah’s command-and-control infrastructure.
Contents
A New Paradigm in Asymmetric Warfare
The Pager Precedent: A Blueprint for Supply-Chain Dominance
The Technological Leap: The Science of Transparent Munitions
A Long History: The Pursuit of Blinding and Directed-Energy Weapons
The Legal and Ethical Battlefield: A High-Stakes Gamble
Innovation, Necessity, and Moral High Ground
The attack, a masterclass in supply-chain infiltration, did more than just disrupt an adversary; it signaled a paradigm shift in asymmetric warfare. By turning a common electronic device into a weapon, Israel demonstrated a new doctrine: the mass weaponization of commercial technology.
Now, one year later in the autumn of 2025, a pressing question emerges from the strategic fallout: what comes next? As tensions with Iran and its proxies continue to dominate mainstream news, speculation has turned to an even more ubiquitous and personal item: eyeglasses and contact lenses.
The concept, while seemingly drawn from espionage fiction, warrants serious analysis. Based on established technological precedents, current materials science research, and Israel’s long-standing security doctrine, the development of explosive optical devices is not only plausible but represents a logical next step in this new era of warfare.
The Pager Precedent: A Blueprint for Supply-Chain Dominance
To grasp the potential for weaponized eyewear, one must first appreciate the strategic success of the pager operation. It was not merely an act of sabotage but the culmination of a years-long intelligence effort to achieve supply-chain dominance. Reports indicate that Mossad, likely through front companies, orchestrated the manufacturing of pagers with minuscule quantities of PETN (pentaerythritol tetranitrate) integrated into their batteries. The explosive, a potent and near-transparent compound when purified, evaded detection.
The operation’s true genius lay in its exploitation of an enemy’s operational security measures. Hezbollah had adopted pagers to avoid Israeli signals intelligence (SIGINT) capabilities that effectively tracked cellular phones. Israel turned this strength into a catastrophic vulnerability. The synchronized detonation, reportedly triggered by a sophisticated broadcast signal, created chaos, sowing paranoia and crippling the organization’s ability to coordinate.
For Israeli strategists, this confirmed a powerful new doctrine: if an adversary’s communication or logistical network can be physically infiltrated at the source, it can be neutralized with unprecedented precision and scale. Eyewear, with its complex global supply chain originating largely in Asia and distributed worldwide, presents a similar and arguably more intimate target.
The Technological Leap: The Science of Transparent Munitions
The primary technical hurdle is the creation of a stable, transparent explosive that can be molded into an optical-grade lens without compromising its explosive power. While traditional explosives like C-4 are opaque, advancements in materials science are closing this gap.
The pager attacks utilized PETN, a crystalline substance. For a lens, the ideal material would be an amorphous explosive. Unlike crystals, which have an ordered molecular lattice that scatters light and causes opacity, amorphous solids have a disordered structure, much like glass, allowing light to pass through.
Declassified research from institutions like the U.S. Army’s Picatinny Arsenal, dating back to 2016, reveals long-standing military interest in developing transparent energetic materials using nanotechnology. The goal has been to alter the molecular structure of explosive compounds to achieve clarity without sacrificing stability or power.
More recently, research from institutions like Purdue University into “switchable explosives”—compounds that remain inert until activated by a specific trigger, such as sound or light frequency—points toward dual-use materials that could function as a lens until armed.
Israel’s deep investment in nanotechnology and its advanced defense firms, such as Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, place it at the forefront of this field. Rafael’s work on hypersonic interceptors, which rely on sophisticated infrared seekers and miniaturized explosive warheads, demonstrates a mastery of integrating advanced optics with energetic materials. The incremental steps from a mostly-hidden explosive like PETN in a battery to a fully transparent amorphous explosive in a lens are scientifically significant but represent a clear developmental trajectory.
A Long History: The Pursuit of Blinding and Directed-Energy Weapons
The concept of using advanced technology to blind an adversary is not new; it is a well-established, if controversial, field of military research. Long before the idea of explosive lenses, the world’s major powers invested heavily in directed-energy weapons designed to disable optics—both human and electronic. This history provides a crucial strategic precedent for any operation targeting an enemy’s vision.
As early as March 1982, the U.S. Army Missile Command awarded a $27 million contract to develop ROADRUNNER, a vehicle-mounted, high-energy laser intended to find and destroy the sensitive optical sensors of enemy weapon systems. While its primary mission was anti-sensor, its potential to cause permanent blindness in soldiers was an undeniable and alarming capability. ROADRUNNER was part of a broader Cold War-era push into tactical laser systems, a field that eventually led to the Forward Area Laser Weapon System (FALWD) and other programs aimed at protecting troops by disabling incoming threats.
The very real possibility of these technologies being used as anti-personnel blinding weapons sparked significant international concern. This culminated in the 1995 Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV to the CCW), a landmark arms control treaty that preemptively banned weapons specifically designed to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision. The protocol did not ban lasers outright, but it made the intent to blind illegal.
Today, this legacy continues with the development of modern High-Energy Laser Weapon Systems (HELWS). While publicly designated for countering drones, rockets, and mortars, these systems operate on the same principles as their predecessors. A laser powerful enough to burn through a drone’s airframe is more than capable of causing irreversible eye damage.
This technological duality—publicly stated anti-materiel purpose versus inherent anti-personnel capability—keeps the issue relevant and demonstrates a persistent military interest in weaponized light. This decades-long pursuit establishes that targeting vision is a consistent theme in modern warfare, making the idea of weaponized eyewear a technologically advanced continuation of an old strategic goal.
The Legal and Ethical Battlefield: A High-Stakes Gamble
The deployment of weaponized eyewear would provoke an international legal firestorm far exceeding that of the pager attacks. The pager operation already drew condemnation for violating international humanitarian law (IHL). UN experts and human rights organizations argued the attacks constituted an illegal use of booby-traps under Amended Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), which prohibits targeting “apparently harmless portable objects.”
Weaponized lenses would be a more profound challenge to the core principles of IHL:
Distinction: How could the weapon distinguish between a combatant and a civilian family member who might borrow the glasses? The inability to make this distinction would lead to accusations of indiscriminate attacks.
Perfidy: This is the act of killing or injuring an adversary by feigning protected status. Using an object associated with civilian life and medical need to deliver an attack would almost certainly be classified as perfidy under the Geneva Conventions.
Proponents of such an operation would argue that it is a legitimate tactic when used against military targets, such as a known enemy unit whose members are all issued compromised eyewear. They would frame it as a proportional response that minimizes collateral damage compared to an airstrike. However, this legal defense would be tenuous and would likely fail to persuade international bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC), further isolating Israel politically.
Innovation, Necessity, and Moral High Ground
As of late 2025, there is no public evidence that Israel has developed or deployed explosive eyewear. However, the strategic logic is undeniable. In its decades-long shadow war with Iran and its proxies, Israel has consistently prioritized technological superiority and covert action to offset its quantitative disadvantages.
The 2024 pager attack was not an endpoint but a declaration of a new capability. The convergence of a proven operational blueprint, advancing materials science, and a persistent existential threat makes the pursuit of even more discreet weapon systems a near certainty.
For Israel, the challenge is not merely technical but profoundly strategic: it must weigh the tactical advantages of such innovations against the immense political and legal costs. Deploying a weapon that so intimately blurs the line between civilian objects and military hardware would be a gamble for its very legitimacy on the world stage.
As technology continues to evolve, the question for Israel is not just “Can we do this?” but “Should we?”—a question that will define the character of its defense and its place in the world for years to come.
The road to Oct. 7 began in Hebron Moshe Phillips
The 1929 massacre by local Arabs is not just a painful chapter in the past but a reality that still impacts the region.
Sept. 8, 2025 JNS
Itamar Ben-Gvir, the outspoken Israeli politician who currently serves as Israel’s Minister of National Security, was recently targeted by Hamas for assassination. Fortunately, the plot was uncovered in early September and the would-be murderers from the “Hebron area,” according to reports, are now in custody.
This news item is among the first international news out of the “Hebron area” to break since Elliot Kaufman’s Wall Street Journal op-ed on July 5, “A New Palestinian Offer for Peace With Israel,” which offered a naive and misguided view of the potential for peace in the region. Kaufman reported that local sheikhs in Hebron could take the lead in peace efforts with Israel, ignoring the complexities and political realities that make such an idea not only impossible and impractical but dangerous.
It’s been two months since Kaufman’s article was published, and nothing substantial has come out of Hebron that he said was going to happen. His article was widely reported as news by nearly every major news outlet.
Kaufman’s suggestion that the sheikhs could be instrumental in peace talks overlooks many truths, and here’s just one: Peace negotiations require institutional authority, something the sheikhs simply don’t have. While they may have some influence on hyper-local affairs, they lack the political power to represent all Palestinians or to implement any peace agreement at a national level. Peace is not something that can be brokered over tea in a local council meeting; it requires legitimate authority, which they do not possess and cannot attain.
This point becomes even more significant when you consider Hebron’s violent history. The 1929 Hebron massacre—when 67 Jews were murdered and more than 70 others were wounded—is not just a painful chapter in the past but a reality that still impacts the region today. The massacre, which involved not only killings but also horrifying acts of sexual violence, left deep scars. The similarities between the Hebron massacre in 1929 and the atrocities committed on Oct. 7 are many, including the fact that seemingly noncombatants participated in the surprise attacks.
Hebron’s history is one of brutality against Jews. Kaufman’s optimism ignores the deep-seated antisemitism that is very much still present there.
He overlooks one of the most significant factors that shape society in Hebron today: the power and influence of Hamas, as the plot against Ben-Gvir demonstrates. While Kaufman focuses on local leadership, he fails to engage with the reality that Hamas has significant support in Judea and Samaria. During the Hamas-led terrorist invasion of Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, many Hebron Arabs openly supported the attacks. That isn’t a detail that can be brushed aside. Hamas’s deep influence is a fact that needs to be reckoned with. Kaufman’s dreams of peace—driven by sheikhs—ignore this critical dynamic. The reality is that Hamas’s grip on Palestinian society cannot be wished away.
In fact, his idealization of the sheikhs also fails to account for their lack of formal political power. They have no control over the police, military or judicial systems in Hebron or within the broader area. More than that, they aren’t even recognized by the international community as legitimate representatives of the Palestinian Arabs. While they may have some sway within their own communities, their ability to engage in meaningful negotiations or secure a lasting peace is just not real. It is one thing to be influential locally and quite another to be trusted with the power to negotiate internationally.
Then there’s the Palestinian Authority itself, which Kaufman seems to bypass in his analysis. While the P.A. is widely regarded as a governing body in Palestinian Arab areas, its control is shaky at best. Corruption, incompetence and a failure to provide security or accountability have combined to weaken the P.A. Worse still, it has been unable or unwilling to confront Hamas, which continues to gain influence. Kaufman seems to overlook this crucial fact—the P.A., despite its formal status, has shown little ability or will to deliver stability.
At its core, Kaufman’s argument is built on a misunderstanding of what is needed for peace between Israel and its neighbors. His view of Hebron’s sheikhs as potential peacemakers is overly simplistic and naive, ignoring the violent history of the Arabs of Hebron and the deep divisions among Palestinians.
His solution may sound appealing in theory, but it ignores the harsh realities that make it unworkable. Until everyday Palestinians demand that their leaders make real reforms, until Arab media, clerics and leaders stop glorifying terrorism and antisemitism, and until Hamas is defeated, negotiations will remain out of reach and any discussion of negotiations will remain exactly that—a discussion.
MOSHE PHILLIPS Moshe Phillips, a veteran pro-Israel activist and author, is the national chairman of Americans For a Safe Israel (AFSI). A former board member of the American Zionist Movement, he previously served as national director of the U.S. division of Herut and worked with CAMERA in Philadelphia. He was also a delegate to the 2020 World Zionist Congress and served as editor of The Challenger, the publication of the Tagar Zionist Youth Movement. His op-eds and letters have been widely published in the United States and Israel.
Pro-Palestinians are not actually pro-Palestinian. JOSHUA HOFFMAN
This is how you know the “pro-Palestinian” movement is a farce for modern-day antisemitism at its core. Every Jew must take notice.
SEP 07, 2025
“Pro-Palestinian” activists dominate headlines, campuses, and city streets.
They chant, march, and disrupt in the name of “Palestinian” freedom.
But pause for a moment and imagine something different. Imagine if the people who call themselves “pro-Palestinian” were actually committed to the well-being of Palestinians. The Middle East, and the lives of millions, would look radically different.
Imagine if the people who call themselves “pro-Palestinian” actually fought for the well-being of Palestinians. Imagine if they poured their outrage not into chanting for Israel’s destruction, but into demanding the dismantling of Hamas, a tyrannical regime that has stolen Palestinian futures for decades.
If the marches and slogans were aimed at Gaza’s rulers instead of Israel’s citizens, Hamas would be gone. Gaza would not lie in ruins. Its children would not grow up in jihadist schools, its families would not be forced to serve as human shields, and its economy would not be chained to the machinery of terror.
Had “pro-Palestinian” activists truly wanted freedom for Gaza, they would have demanded Hamas lay down its weapons, dismantle its terror infrastructure, and invest in education, jobs, and healthcare. They would have condemned the October 7th massacres not only for the slaughter of Israelis, but also for the catastrophe it unleashed upon Gazans, who now live amid rubble.
The real tragedy is that no march, no viral campaign, and no campus sit-in has demanded that Hamas stop sacrificing Palestinians on the altar of perpetual war.
Consider the Israeli company SodaStream. One of their manufacturing plants used to be located in the West Bank, the company employed hundreds of Palestinians in good-paying jobs. Workers earned up to three times the average Palestinian wage, enjoyed benefits, and worked alongside Israelis in an environment of cooperation. It was a model of coexistence.
But the “pro-Palestinian” boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement could not tolerate that. It pressured SodaStream to close its West Bank plant. The result? Hundreds of Palestinians lost their jobs. Many openly begged for the factory to remain open. One Palestinian worker put it simply: “We want to work. We want to live.” But activists cheered the closure as a “victory.” For whom? Certainly not for Palestinians.
If “pro-Palestinians” were truly pro-Palestinian, they would be campaigning for more SodaStreams, not fewer. They would advocate for economic partnerships, cross-border trade, and sustainable industries that bring dignity and prosperity. Instead, they celebrate economic sabotage, even when it devastates Palestinian families.
The Palestinian Authority receives billions in international aid, yet ordinary Palestinians see little benefit. Hospitals lack supplies. Schools are underfunded. Poverty is endemic. Where does the money go? To the villas of officials in Ramallah. To “martyr salaries” that pay terrorists more than teachers or doctors. To offshore accounts that enrich the ruling elite.
Real pro-Palestinians would be demanding transparency, accountability, and reform. They would protest in front of Palestinian Authority headquarters demanding that its president, Mahmoud Abbas, hold elections — something he has avoided for nearly two decades. They would reject a system that keeps Palestinians dependent and disempowered.
But the “pro-Palestinian” movement never lifts a finger against corruption in Palestinian leadership, because doing so would expose the uncomfortable truth: The real enemy of Palestinian freedom is not Israel, but the failed leadership of Palestinians themselves.
History makes this even clearer. Time and again, Palestinians have been offered statehood. In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed partition. In 1947, the United Nations voted to establish both a Jewish and an Arab state. In 2000 at Camp David and in 2008 under Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Palestinians were again offered nearly all of the West Bank and Gaza.
Each time, Israel said yes or was willing to negotiate. Each time, Palestinian leaders said no — and often answered with violence. If “pro-Palestinians” truly wanted a Palestinian state, they would demand accountability for these rejections, instead of pretending Israel alone is responsible for the lack of peace.
The hypocrisy grows sharper when one looks beyond Israel. Where were the “pro-Palestinian” marches when Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria starved and bombed Palestinian refugees in the Yarmouk camp? Where are the protests against Egypt, which controls Gaza’s southern border at Rafah and often keeps it shut tighter than Israel ever has? Where is the outrage at Jordan or Lebanon, which restrict Palestinians’ rights to work and own property?
These absences reveal the truth: Palestinian lives are not the movement’s concern. Jewish lives are. The outrage is selective, and therefore dishonest.
And so Palestinian suffering itself is weaponized. Each destroyed building, each funeral, each statistic becomes not a rallying cry to improve Palestinian lives, but a cudgel to delegitimize Israel. The tears are not for the children of Gaza, but for the political capital their deaths provide. The tragedy of Palestinians is that their pain is turned into theater, recycled endlessly for global consumption, never to build, only to destroy.
Compare this to other conflicts. China holds a million Uyghurs in concentration camps. Russia leveled the Ukrainian city of Mariupol. Turkey has oppressed Kurds for decades. Yet no weekly mass marches fill the streets of Western capitals for these people. There are no campus encampments for the Uyghurs. The world erupts only when Jews are involved. This double standard is not accidental; it is the essence of antisemitism, singling out the Jewish state for treatment applied to no other nation.
The moral inversion of the so-called “pro-Palestinian” movement is staggering. What would help Palestinians — economic cooperation, coexistence programs, peace negotiations — is condemned. What hurts Palestinians — terrorism, corruption, boycotts, and rejectionism — is celebrated. This is not a mistake of analysis; it is the deliberate choice of a movement whose goal is not to uplift Palestinians, but to oppose Jews.
That is why “pro-Palestinian” rallies so often spill into explicitly antisemitic violence: vandalizing synagogues, harassing Jewish students, assaulting Jewish diners at restaurants. No other diaspora is targeted when a foreign conflict erupts. Only Jews. Anti-Zionism, far from being a separate category, has become the socially acceptable mask for the oldest hatred.
Antisemitism is not suddenly “surging.” It has not re-emerged after decades of dormancy. It has always been here — ancient, adaptable, relentless. From Pharaoh to the Romans, from medieval blood libels to pogroms, from the gas chambers of Auschwitz to the boycotts of Israel, the Jew has been the eternal target. The difference is not in its existence, but in its disguise.
After the Holocaust, explicit antisemitism became taboo in polite society. It was no longer acceptable to say “I hate Jews” or “Jews are our problem.” So antisemitism put on a new mask. It called itself “anti-Zionism.” It replaced the individual Jew with the collective Jew, the State of Israel. What had once been “the Jew is poisoning the well” became “Israel is poisoning the world.” What had once been “the Jew controls the banks” became “Israel controls the governments.”
The same stereotypes, the same conspiracies, the same eliminationist desire — only rebranded for a post-Holocaust world.
That is why Jews must not fool themselves into thinking that supporting the so-called “pro-Palestinian” movement is an act of justice, coexistence, solidarity. It is not. It is a betrayal of Jewish dignity and survival. To march alongside those who chant “From the River to the Sea” is not to stand for human rights; it is to stand for the erasure of Jewish self-determination. To endorse the boycotts of Israel is not to promote peace; it is to empower those who dream of dismantling the world’s only Jewish homeland.
Jews should not support this movement under any circumstances, because the movement is not about freedom, justice, or dignity for Palestinians. It is about denying freedom, justice, and dignity to Jews. When Jews lend their names, their voices, or their organizations to the cause of “Palestine,” they are not siding with the oppressed. They are siding with the oppressor: history’s most consistent oppressor of Jews themselves.
The disguise may have changed, but the hatred is the same. Antisemitism in the 21st century no longer marches under the banners of swastikas and fascist salutes; it marches under keffiyehs and slogans of “liberation.” But the goal is identical: the elimination of Jewish security, sovereignty, and survival. To support such a movement as a Jew is not only dangerous; it is self-destructive.
Meanwhile, Palestinians who truly seek peace or criticize their leadership are silenced. In Gaza, dissidents are jailed, tortured, or executed by Hamas. In the West Bank, activists calling for reform face intimidation. These voices are rarely amplified by Western activists because they contradict the narrative that Israel is solely to blame. And so the Palestinians most invested in building a better future are ignored, while those invested in endless conflict are elevated.
Movements reveal their true nature not by their slogans, but by their choices. A movement that cared about Palestinians would fight Hamas, build jobs, demand reform, and push for coexistence. But the movement we see today does none of that. Instead, it glorifies violence, sabotages opportunity, and shields corruption — all while blaming Israel for every Palestinian misfortune.
That is why the “pro-Palestinian” movement is not a liberation movement, but an eliminationist one. Its energy is not spent building a Palestinian future, just hindering the Jewish one. Its obsession is not Palestinian life, but Jewish existence.
The path to a real Palestinian future is clear: Destroy Hamas, reject terrorism, demand accountable leadership, build an economy of peace, and recognize Israel’s right to exist as the Jewish state alongside any Palestinian one. Only then can Palestinians thrive.
Imagine a movement that marched for democracy in Ramallah, that fundraised for Palestinian entrepreneurs, that pressured leaders to accept peace offers, that amplified Palestinian reformers instead of terrorists. That would be a pro-Palestinian movement worthy of the name.
But until the so-called “pro-Palestinian” movement makes that its rallying cry, it cannot claim to be pro-Palestinian at all. For now, its name is a lie, and its cause is not justice. It’s hate.
Hamas Just Played Their Ace Card Again, Sending Israel Into Full PANIC Mode! [52:07] Alex Traiman and Josh Hasten
September 7, 2025 JNS TV – Israel is quickly approaching the point of no return in their war against Hamas.
Broadcast from the JNS Media Hub in Jerusalem, JNS CEO and Jerusalem bureau chief Alex Traiman joins JNS Middle East correspondent Josh Hasten to break down the IDF’s full-scale incursion into Gaza City, the nerve center of Hamas operations. As multi-story buildings used by terrorists are demolished, Traiman and Hasten explore what this means for dismantling Hamas’s tunnel network and military infrastructure once and for all.
Meanwhile, President Trump issues a stark ultimatum to Hamas: release all Israeli hostages or face dire consequences. The episode also covers the escalating hostage crisis, the latest proposal for annexation in Judea and Samaria, dissecting mainstream media distortions and the political narrative surrounding Prime Minister Netanyahu and the controversial involvement of U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and far-left negotiator Gershon Baskin.
Finally, you don’t want to miss the hosts’ reaction to Tucker Carlson’s inflammatory claims, including his dismissal of Judea and Samaria as “mythical” and his platforming of a former State Department staffer attacking pro-Israel officials.
A Fitting Psychiatric Diagnosis JOAN SWIRSKY
Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS)
September 6, 2025
Since the very microsecond in 2015 when billionaire builder and TV star Donald Trump descended the escalator in NY City’s splendiferous Trump Tower with his gorgeous wife Melania by his side and pronounced his candidacy as a Republican for the presidency of the United States of America, each and every leftist, liberal, progressive (LLP] from all over the world went insane.
A big part of that insanity was fear. After a 15-year run hosting the mega-successful TV show The Apprentice, candidate Trump’s adversaries knew that they were up against a guy with not only international name recognition as an innovative real estate developer, but also brains, an Ivy League education, a billionaire who could not be bought, bribed or compromised, and who also had that rare and elusive X factor known as charisma.
In fact, it was the late political columnist and TV personality, who was also a psychiatrist, Charles Krauthammer, who originally coined the phrase Bush Derangement Syndrome that ended up fitting candidate Trump so perfectly…hence, Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). That “syndrome” was defined by Krauthammer as “the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency—nay—the very existence of”––in 2015 and beyond, Donald Trump.
In fact, Krauthammer, in an op-ed, commented that—in addition to general hysteria about Trump—the “Trump Derangement Syndrome” was the “inability to distinguish between legitimate policy differences and … signs of psychic pathology.”
NO PROBLEM
But the insanity didn’t last long when all those LLPs realized that they themselves had three immensely powerful weapons against candidate Trump.
The first was ACORN (Association Of Community Organizations For Reform Now), which admitted to voter fraud in 2010 and went to prison, but upon release reorganized, changed their name, and by 2015 were back in the vote-rigging business.
The second powerful weapon in their Get-Trump toolbox was the leftist mainstream media, a media that once lionized Donald Trump, featured his beauteous former-model wife on the covers of prestigious fashion magazines, and thanked him copiously for his tremendous contributions to New York City, including for the long-forsaken Wollman ice-skating rink.
But in 2015, it was a media that was also poised to use all of its power and malevolence to defame, vilify, mock, undermine, and try to utterly destroy candidate––and worse, Republican––Trump.
The third, which the LLPs considered their most devastating weapon, was none other than candidate Trump’s formidable opponent, the former two-term First Lady of Arkansas while her husband was governor, and also the two-term First Lady of the USA while her husband, President Bill Clinton, was POTUS. And that is not to omit that Hillary Clinton was a former Secretary of State under the Obama regime, and a feminist icon to women around the world, all of whom chose to ignore that she tolerated a husband who spit in her face every day as his serial philandering became globally publicized.
But this seemingly ongoing blemish was no matter to every gender-obsessed LLP who hoped to be alive long enough to witness the first woman to be inaugurated as President of the United States of America!
THE SYMPTOMS STARTED IMMEDIATELY
All that original optimism notwithstanding, it didn’t take long for Democrats to finally acknowledge that they had a very good reason to fear a Trump presidency. Here was a man with limitless energy and obviously impervious to their gratuitous insults, defamation of character, and fabricated lies, as well as instantly ready to level withering and often prescient nicknames, caricatures and insults right back at them.
Who can forget Fake News CNN, Crooked Joe and Sleepy Joe (Biden), Low IQ War Hawk (Liz Cheney), Crazy Hillary and Crooked Hillary, Leakin’ James Comey, Shady James Comey and Slimeball James Comey, Comrade Kamala, Broken Old Crow (Mitch McConnell}, Governor Newscum (Gavin Newsom), Pocahontas (Elizabeth Warren), Our Great Palestinian Senator (Chuck Schumer), Tampon Tim (MN Gov. Tim Walz), and Pencil Neck (Cong. Adam Schiff)?
So colorful, so hilarious, and to the LLPs, so maddening, so menacing, so mortifying.
SMELLING THE COFFEE
Again, it wasn’t long before the Democrat establishment realized that ole Hillary would not have a cakewalk into the White House. That was when they launched their lawfare campaign, which is basically using lawsuits as weapons either to intimidate an opponent, or specifically in this case to persistently badger or bankrupt candidate Trump into quitting the race.
They had the wrong guy.
And we all witnessed the net result of that historic election. After virtually all the polls and pundits predicted a crushing Hillary victory, We the People had other ideas and literally swept candidate Trump to a decisive and yes, crushing victory into the Oval Office!
A WELLSPRING OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The Trump presidency was remarkable for its stunning accomplishments…high employment across all demographics, energy independence to last a thousand years, foreign actors paying their fair share into NATO (for the first time), a significantly strengthened US Military, widespread deregulation resulting in billions saved, the unprecedented Abraham Accords in the Middle East, expanding access to affordable healthcare choices and lowering drug prices, on and on and on.
It was also remarkable for the obdurate persistence of the peculiar Democrat hysteria at the very sight, sound or even mention of POTUS Trump.
THEN CAME 2020
The entire world was watching the returns roll in and, as expected, President Trump was racking up victory after victory in what clearly appeared to be a slam-dunk return to the White House. But suddenly––and for the first time in history––every TV station experienced a complete cessation of coverage. Typical electronic glitch, everyone initially thought.
But uh-oh…a glitch for three, four, five hours? What’s wrong with this picture?
What was wrong was that the clear victor became the ultimate loser and President Trump was forced to accede to Joe Biden, who even then, in 2020, was exhibiting alarming signs of cognitive decline.
Without rehashing the years-long controversy over rigged voting machines and mountains of fraudulent mail-in votes (ala Dinesh D’Souza’s explosive film, 2000 Mules), America was stuck with or condemned to Obama 2.0, 11-million illegal aliens breaching our borders, unvetted during the Covid scamdemic, a significantly weakened military, a pitiful and dangerous foreign policy that ushered in not one but five raging wars––in Darfur, Yemen, Myanmar, Ukraine, and Israel––not one of which existed in the Trump years.
INCURABLE
And during all these years, nothing persisted more hysterically, more irrationally, than Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines deranged as “mentally unsound…” –– and I would add obsessed! According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association, obsession is defined as recurrent and persistent thoughts, urges, or impulses that are…intrusive… and often lead to … repetitive behaviors, in this case of thinking night and day––um, obsessively––of ways to ultimately convince the vast populace––including multimillions of subscribers to social media like Facebook, Instagram, Telegram, X, et al––that under Trump, the world would come to an end.
Of course, this deranged, obsessed, indeed crazed cult engages daily in inflammatory memes that are largely inaccurate or downright false. When you’re obsessed, truth and accuracy are mere inconveniences.
Meanwhile, employment is high, Wall St. is pipping and popping, cesspools of crime like D.C. are being cleaned up, illegal criminals are being deported, wars that raged on for years are being ended, vicious anti-Semitism in American colleges and universities is being aggressively sanctioned, but the derangement and obsessiveness only grows.
In fact, writer Zoe Tillman documents that just since President Trump’s second term began this year, 74 Lawsuits Have Already Been Filed. But records show that he has been largely successful in fighting this rabid lawfare onslaught by dozens of partisan leftwing judges, to the everlasting handwringing and hysteria of the Get Trump cabal.
After years of observing this floridly aberrant behavior, I have to say that President Trump reminds me of Israel––relentlessly attacked but ultimately victorious!
Joan Swirsky is a New York–based journalist and author. Her website is www.joanswirsky.com, and she can be reached at joanswirsky@gmail.com.https://www.thepostemail.com/2025/09/06/a-fitting-psychiatric-diagnosis/
