Beth Israel Congregation President Zach Shemper wrapped up a week on Capitol Hill Thursday feeling “confident” that sharing the story of the recent arson attack on his synagogue with lawmakers would bring increased security funding for houses of worship nationwide — including his own.

“My message to members of Congress was simple — increasing funding for the Nonprofit Security Grant Program and advancing the Pray Safe Act will make a real difference for houses of worship like ours across the country,” Shemper told Jewish Insider. 

It’s been one month since a fire heavily damaged the historic place of worship — the only synagogue in Jackson and the largest one in the state. The suspected arsonist, Stephen Spencer Pittman, 19, admitted to starting the blaze on Jan. 10 due to “the building’s Jewish ties,” and referred to the institution as the “synagogue of Satan.”

Pittman was charged on Thursday with civil rights and arson offenses, which add to an earlier arson indictment. Two Torah scrolls were destroyed in the fire, and five more were damaged. A Torah that survived the Holocaust, which was kept in a glass case, was unharmed. The congregation’s library and administrative office were also destroyed. Synagogue leaders estimate it will take two or three years to rebuild. The 140 families that belong to Beth Israel are indefinitely holding services in a nearby church.  

Less than two weeks after the attack, ​​Congress put forward a budget of $300 million for NSGP for 2026. While that figure is a small increase from the funding provided in 2024 and 2025, it is lower than the allocations initially proposed by both the House and Senate. That figure is also significantly less than the $500 million to $1 billion for the program requested by congressional advocates and Jewish groups. 

New conditions on the program relating to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs and immigration have also drawn bipartisan condemnation.

Still, Shemper said he is “feeling confident about increased NSGP funding. At the end of the day, it’s just the right thing to do.” 

In meetings facilitated by the Anti-Defamation League, Shemper met with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY); the ranking members of the House and Senate Homeland Security committees, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI); Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA); and the co-chairs of the House Bipartisan Task Force to Counter Antisemitism, Reps. Dan Goldman (D-NY), Marc Veasey (D-TX), Grace Meng (D-NY), Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and George Latimer (D-NY).

“The arson attack on Beth Israel Congregation in Jackson, Mississippi is a stark reminder that Jewish institutions across the country face serious and persistent security threats. ADL was proud to join Beth Israel Congregation President Zach Shemper on Capitol Hill this week to ensure lawmakers could hear directly from a community leader navigating the aftermath of a targeted attack,” ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said in a statement. “Faith communities deserve to gather and worship without fear, and Congress has a clear opportunity, and responsibility, to help make that possible.”

Shemper told JI that “coming to Washington this week gave me the opportunity to underscore what it takes for synagogues like ours to keep our congregants safe.”

“After the arson attack on our synagogue, security is not an abstract concern,” he continued. “It is immediate, personal and a daily reality for our community. What happened in Jackson was not an isolated incident, it’s part of a dangerous pattern. No community should have to experience what we have, and no congregation should ever have to rebuild after an attack simply for being Jewish.”

Located in a major hub of the Civil Rights Movement, Beth Israel was also the target of a 1967 bombing by the Ku Klux Klan over the rabbi’s support for racial equality — including providing chaplain services to activists incarcerated for challenging segregated bussing in the state. 

Shemper said that NSGP “helped pay for security cameras that caught the assailant” of the arson attack.

“I was in Washington advocating for increased NSGP funding — because our grant didn’t cover the full cost of security cameras, and there are certainly more houses of worship who need access to this funding,” he continued. 

“Security for houses of worship can’t be optional, and it can’t just come after tragedy.” 

Columbia University this week tapped University of Wisconsin-Madison Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin as its  fourth president in two years — and first Jewish leader in three decades. 

While the New York City campus, which was roiled by antisemitic turmoil for nearly two years following the Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attacks in Israel, has been quieter in recent months, Jewish student leaders who worked closely with Mnookin at Wisconsin expressed optimism that she could help Columbia repair its strained relationship with the federal government and ongoing division among students and manage the implementation of recent recommendations made by the school’s antisemitism task force. 

Still, Mnookin, a legal scholar who served as dean of the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law before moving to Wisconsin in 2022, faced some criticism over concessions she made with Students for Justice in Palestine protesters during an anti-Israel encampment on the Madison campus in April 2024. 

Mnookin initially sent law enforcement to shut down the student encampment — resulting in the arrest of roughly three dozen demonstrators — then negotiated with protesters after they established a new encampment. The non-binding deal reached to dismantle that encampment required SJP to comply with university protest rules in exchange for the right to present their divestment demands to university leaders, who did not consent to their requests.

Under Mnookin’s leadership, SJP was suspended from campus in July 2025 for violating university policy while protesting an event with former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield. SJP was reinstated, on probation, earlier this month. 

After Columbia’s board of trustees announced her unanimous appointment, Mnookin wrote in an email to the Columbia community on Monday that “the last several years have been challenging ones for higher education, certainly including Columbia. Having had the privilege for the past few years of leading a public flagship university in a complex time, I well understand the significant uncertainties and heightened scrutiny many universities are now facing.”

“The chancellor being Jewish would lead a lot of Jewish students to automatically assume she’s ‘on our side.’ That’s not her role, despite what her personal beliefs might be outside of her position. [But] Mnookin was definitely present in the aftermath of Oct. 7,” Jacob Bigelman, who graduated from Wisconsin in May with a degree in personal finance, told Jewish Insider. 

Bigelman, a former AEPi chapter president, helped organize the first meeting post-Oct. 7 between Jewish students and Mnookin “to express concerns about antisemitism and when freedom of speech teeters on the line of hate speech,” he said. 

“She’s a very experienced legal scholar with an understanding of the First Amendment,” Bigelman said. When Mnookin didn’t put out a statement immediately following the terrorist attacks, as many other university leaders had done, Bigelman questioned her about the silence during an encounter at the university’s Hillel, a couple days after the attacks. 

“She said it was a classic lose-lose situation,” he recalled. “You’re never going to make someone happy enough and it creates a precedent that every time a world event happens the university has to comment on everything.” Mnookin did release a statement on Oct. 11, which Bigelman described as “neutral.” In it, she expressed concern that “these devastating developments will fan the global flames of both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, making peace and justice in the region even more elusive.”

Later, her response to the encampment “left everyone wanting a little bit more,” said Bigelman. “Jewish students, and people fed up with the protests in general, were happy to see she gave them warnings. When those weren’t met she brought in the police. A lot of people were glad to see the university was taking concrete steps to follow through on dismantling the protest. When the encampment started again, a lot of people were hoping they would send the police back in and were disappointed to find out that they were going to enter negotiations with SJP.”  

At the same time, Bigelman said that “the negotiations were purely symbolic and she didn’t give in on anything of substance. The symbolism of negotiating with them is what frustrated a lot of Jewish students.”

“I think what Mnookin did well is she maintained institutional control,” he continued. “Campus never got to the levels of Columbia, which was seen as ground zero of all of this. Everyone was left wanting a little bit more [from her], but at the end of the day, in terms of negotiations with protesters, nothing happened with negotiations that impacted the way the university discloses its finances. I think it was just making the Palestinian cause feel that it had more space on campus. But just the symbolism of it left a sour taste in a lot of our mouths.”

Bigelman said that he would have liked to see more transparency from the administration, which relied on “proceduralism, such as codes of conduct, disciplinary probation, internal committees, that came off as a bit obscure to people involved.”

Overall though, “the chancellor was good to our university,” he said. “At the end of the day, she prevented the campus from turning into something worse. [That] track record may be why she was eyed for this opening at Columbia.” 

He added, “I think Mnookin will be strong with working with Congress” in regard to reinstating Columbia’s funding that was slashed by the federal government over an alleged failure to combat antisemitism. The university announced in July it would implement several commitments in an effort to restore some $400 million in federal funding.  

Sophie Small, who graduated from UW-Madison in December with a double major in history and religious studies, met Mnookin several times at Hillel. The chancellor was “a frequent flier at things like Rosh Hashanah services and would always come and light the Hanukkah candles on the first night,” Small, who served on Hillel’s executive board, recalled.

Small, who described the encampment as “a gathering” that was not disruptive like on other campuses, said she feels “70 percent positive, 30 percent negative” about how Mnookin handled protests and her relationship with Jews on campus.

“She did what she could and she showed up for the Jewish community in ways I was impressed by,” said Small. “She did not stop coming to Rosh Hashanah even though she was under flak from Jewish students and parents.” 

“I’m excited for her to be at Columbia,” continued Small. “I didn’t feel like Columbia was encouraging its students to engage in conversation [the way Wisconsin did]. Our encampment was a night and day difference from Columbia’s. I think she’ll be good there. It will be good for Columbia to have a Jewish leader.”   

Mnookin grew up in a Reform Jewish family in the Bay Area. Her father, Robert Mnookin, is on the board of directors at Harvard Hillel and the author of The Jewish American Paradox: Embracing Choice in a Changing World.

Mnookin’s tenure comes on the heels of three other presidents who grappled with campus unrest post-Oct. 7. Minouche Shafik, who was leading the university during the attacks, cited the “period of turmoil” that followed when she resigned in 2024. Shafik was criticized by members of Congress and some of the Columbia community over her handling of the encampment, which included physical intimidation of Jewish students. 

Katrina Armstrong, who briefly replaced Shafik, abruptly stepped down in March 2025 as the school faced pressure and funding cuts from the Trump administration over antisemitism allegations.

Claire Shipman, Armstong’s successor and the current interim president, struck a deal with the government to restore funding. She also faced scrutiny — and later apologized — for leaked text messages where she suggested that a Jewish trustee should be removed from the university’s board over her pro-Israel advocacy.

Hillel directors at Wisconsin and Columbia both expressed support for Mnookin in statements on Monday.  

“Mnookin has been an outstanding friend and partner to UW Hillel, and she has consistently and thoughtfully supported our students,” said Greg Steinberger, CEO and president of UW Hillel. “Her leadership, work ethic and commitment to building community has helped us grow the wonderful Jewish community the UW has long been known for. The UW Hillel Foundation is grateful to Chancellor Mnookin for her friendship, service, and leadership, and we look forward to continuing to work closely with her through the spring semester. We remember fondly celebrating our holidays with the Chancellor. She has stood with us through the challenges, sorrow, and sadness that our community and the campus have experienced.”

Brian Cohen, executive director of the Kraft Center for Jewish Life, Columbia’s Hillel, said, “the last few years have been undeniably difficult for the Jewish and Israeli communities on campus. While challenges remain, there is a vibrant, joyful, proud Jewish community at Columbia. I am hopeful that President-elect Mnookin will bring the reputation, experience, and understanding that we need to build on that strong foundation.”

Judea Pearl, a professor of computer science at UCLA — where Mnookin served as law school dean from 2015-2022 — was also supportive of Columbia’s new hire, calling Mnookin a “good choice” in a post on X.  

Mnookin will begin her tenure on July 1. 

In the summer of 2024, when Vice President Kamala Harris was vetting potential running mates for her expedited campaign for president, a senior member of her team asked Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro whether he had ever been a “double agent for Israel,” Shapiro writes in a new book that will be published later this month. “Was she kidding? I told her how offensive the question was,” Shapiro recounts in the book.

The exchange — which Shapiro describes in an outraged tone — has prompted sharp criticism from Jewish leaders, including some who served in the Biden-Harris administration.

“The more I read about [Shapiro’s] treatment in the vetting process, the more disturbed I become,” Deborah Lipstadt, who served as the State Department’s antisemitism envoy under President Joe Biden, said in a post on X. “These questions were classic antisemitism.” 

Shapiro suggests in the book that he was being treated unfairly as a Jewish contender for the role of vice president: “I wondered whether these questions were being posed to just me — the only Jewish guy in the running — or if everyone who had not held a federal office was being grilled about Israel in the same way,” he writes.

Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt called the line of questioning “barely veiled bigotry,” and said it is “a textbook invocation of one of the oldest antisemitic canards in politics: the smear of dual loyalty.”  

The comments also earned criticism from Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), who said in a statement that “that kind of insinuation and targeting is antisemitism, plain and simple. No one should be judged or discriminated against because of their faith.” 

Shapiro’s Jewish faith and his support for Israel became the object of criticism among far-left activists, who agitated against his selection as Harris’ running mate. Harris has maintained that antisemitism played no role in her decision not to pick Shapiro. 

Shapiro’s account of his interactions with Harris’ campaign suggests that his views on Israel did present a problem for Harris. According to Shapiro, Harris asked him to apologize for comments he had made denouncing the actions of some anti-Israel protesters at the University of Pennsylvania. He refused, writing in his book that he felt Harris wanted him to align “perfectly” with her on all issues.

“It nagged at me that their questions weren’t really about substance,” Shapiro writes. “Rather, they were questioning my ideology, my approach, my world view.”

Abraham Foxman, the former longtime leader of the Anti-Defamation League, called it “very disturbing” that Shapiro was asked about being an Israeli double agent. “Aides focused on Israel to the extent he found it offensive. Something very troubling about our current political culture,” Foxman wrote in a post on X. 

Shapiro was not the first Jewish official to face a “double standard” during the vetting process, Aaron Keyak, the Jewish outreach director on Biden’s 2020 campaign who later served as Lipstadt’s deputy at the State Department, said in a statement.  

“During my vetting process I faced questions in a classified setting that my fellow non-Jewish political appointees did not,” Keyak said. “These sort of antisemitic questions are anti-American and do not represent the best that the Democratic Party offers. Now and especially during the next Presidential campaign we must demand better.” 

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who was chosen as Harris’ running mate, was also asked a question about his own ties to foreign nations. The Harris campaign asked Walz — who had previously lived and worked in China — if he had ever been an agent of China, CNN reported. 

The adversarial nature of Harris and Shapiro’s relationship during the 2024 campaign was the source of a great deal of speculation. Harris took aim at Shapiro, too, in a book she published in 2025, writing that before they even met, he was asking questions about furnishing and decorating the Naval Observatory, where the vice president resides, should he be selected. 

A spokesperson for Harris did not respond to a request for comment.

This story was updated on Jan. 20 with additional comments.

The World Economic Forum kicks off in Davos, Switzerland, on Monday, with topics set to address a world that has been much changed since the last gathering a year ago. For one thing, founder Klaus Schwab will no longer be front and center, following his departure as WEF chair last spring; instead, attendees will hear from WEF President and CEO Børge Brende, WEF co-chairs André Hoffmann and Laurence Fink, and Swiss President Guy Parmelin when the first plenary convenes on Tuesday morning.

Marking a shift from the Biden administration, during which only senior White House officials attended the forum, President Donald Trump will travel to Davos, where he is slated to speak on Wednesday afternoon local time. Joining Trump is a delegation that includes White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Energy Secretary Chris Wright and AI and crypto czar David Sacks.

This year’s summit theme, “A Spirit of Dialogue,” will be felt as much on the sidelines as in the official sessions. While at Davos, Trump is expected to chair the first meeting of the Gaza Board of Peace — which is tasked with temporarily governing Gaza after Hamas — and make an additional announcement about the group. 

The Trump administration has not yet specified how many members the Board of Peace might include, nor have any individuals been named. However, reports have indicated that Nickolay Mladenov, a former U.N. Middle East envoy, who is expected to run the board’s operations on the ground, is likely to tap people from the private sector and NGOs. Other names that have been floated around as potential members include UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Turkish President Recep Erdogan.  

The group will ultimately be tasked with overseeing a 15-member Palestinian technocratic governing body in Gaza, led by Ali Shaath, a former deputy minister in the Western-backed Palestinian Authority who oversaw the development of industrial zones, according to a joint statement by Egypt, Qatar and Turkey.

Sens. Chris Coons (D-DE), who this week is leading a delegation to Denmark as the U.S. engages with Copenhagen over Greenland, will travel on to Davos with some of the delegation’s members. He’s slated to participate in two panels on Wednesday — one on global aid, and a second on the U.S.-China relationship.

The legislators will be joined by Govs. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Andy Beshear of Kentucky and Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma, who are speaking on a panel about state governance. Beshear is also slated to speak on another panel focused on middle-class economics.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog will again participate in the forum, this year speaking in conversation with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on Thursday morning. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz will also speak Thursday morning, days after he made headlines for saying that the Iranian regime is “in its final days and weeks.”

More than a dozen countries — including the U.S., Qatar and Saudi Arabia — will open pavilions in Davos. This will mark Riyadh’s second time opening a pavilion, part of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s effort to showcase the Gulf country’s Vision 2030 plan. The Invest Qatar Pavilion will host a series of events over the course of the week, largely focused on finance and innovation.

Israel won’t have a pavilion this year — but efforts are already underway for an Israel House pavilion at next year’s WEF, though the pavilion, unlike some others, won’t be an official pavilion backed by the Israeli government.

Some attendees will depart Davos on Friday following the conclusion of official events, but others will stay for the annual Shabbat dinner, attended by a who’s who of Jewish — and non-Jewish — guests. 

“When it comes to Shabbos, it’s at the end of a week of intense meetings and networking and business,” Rabbi Avraham Berkowitz, who for years has been involved in the planning for the annual dinner, told JI in 2023. “So then people come to the last important meal: It’s spiritual, it’s purposeful, it’s Yiddishkeit.” 

Jewish Insider Washington reporter Matthew Shea contributed to this report.

Even as President Donald Trump backed away from taking immediate military action against Iran, several leading foreign policy analysts believe a U.S. strike against the Islamic Republic remains a possibility, arguing that the administration may be deliberately keeping Tehran off balance and preserving its military options.

Trump appeared to ease off on striking Iran after being advised by administration officials that a large-scale attack is unlikely to bring about regime change and could instead trigger a broader regional conflict, and hearing concerns from allies — including Israel, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia — who have urged him not to carry out military action. U.S. officials said Washington is now monitoring to see whether Tehran is backing down from its violent crackdowns against protesters before determining whether to act.

“Even though Trump did not direct strikes on Wednesday, he is keeping options open,” said Dana Stroul, the research director at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, pointing to the administration’s decision to reposition the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier from the Indo-Pacific to the Middle East. “The buildup of military posture in the region over the coming weeks keeps plenty of military options on the table and maintains pressure on the Iranian regime.”

Stroul said the president appears to be taking additional time to ensure the U.S. is prepared not only to act against Iran, but also to defend regional partners in the event Iran attacks U.S. allies or military bases in the region, in retaliation.

Analysts cautioned that the delay should not be interpreted as a decision against military action altogether. Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Jewish Insider that he believes a strike is still on the table, putting the odds at “60–40 [percent]” in favor of a strike.

“There’s still a very real possibility of a strike,” Miller said. “I don’t see how the president gets out of the box he put himself in,” referring to Trump’s public calls for Iranians to continue protesting and his promise of U.S. assistance. “When an American president emboldens demonstrators and then says ‘We will help you’ without the capacity to really protect them, you have to wonder whether that’s morally conscious.”

Andrea Stricker, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, also noted that Trump’s rhetoric has made the administration’s hesitation striking.

“It’s puzzling and upsetting that President Trump would call on the Iranian people to continue protesting in the midst of gunfire and then wait so long to act,” Stricker said. She suggested the delay could reflect a deliberate effort to gain military or intelligence advantages before a strike.

“I lean more toward a possible deception campaign designed to expose IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] movements and preparations before an actual U.S. attack,” Stricker said, adding that the administration may prefer to wait until additional U.S. naval assets arrive in the region, which she said would “happen in the coming days.”

Other analysts were more skeptical that Trump’s hesitance is a cover for an impending operation. Elliott Abrams, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former Iran envoy in the first Trump administration, said it’s possible the president won’t act at all.

“As of noon today, it seems Trump will not do anything, which is extraordinary after he urged Iranians to protest and seize institutions at the risk of their lives,” Abrams said on Thursday. “It is unconscionable to say ‘Help is on the way’ and then do nothing. I hope the president will change his mind.”

While the Iranian regime has faced unprecedented pressure at home and abroad, Stroul warned that Iranian retaliation could be significant in the event of a strike — potentially another factor in Trump’s hesitation.

“The regime still has substantial missile and cyber capabilities,” she said. In the event of a strike, “the U.S. and Israel would need to prepare for the possibility of a sustained, destructive conflict that could be extremely costly in human life, military platforms and infrastructure.”

Concerns over retaliation have fueled lobbying by Arab states, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, urging Trump to avoid military action, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly conveyed a similar message to the president on Wednesday

“Arab governments recognize that the regime in Tehran is destabilized but still dangerous,” Stroul said. “Desperate leaders often take unpredictable, aggressive actions. For a region trying to turn the page after years of conflict, leaders are wary of another escalation that could jeopardize economic and security priorities.”

Even among experts who believe military action remains possible, there is broad agreement that it’s not clear what the consequences of a strike would be or that sustained military engagement would lead to the collapse of the regime.

“Any military strike has to answer the question of how it actually changes the balance between a repressive regime and protesters who have very limited means to push back,” Miller said. “There’s no guarantee that even massive strikes would lead to regime change.”

Miller and Stricker both noted that the administration has also not articulated a clear plan for alternative political leadership in Iran should the regime fall — an issue that complicates any decision to intervene.

“Penalizing the regime enough to support the Iranian people could produce unclear outcomes in terms of who provides order and security afterward,” Stricker said. “At the same time, if Trump ultimately does not act, it will be seen by many Iranians as a historic betrayal — and by U.S. adversaries as weakness.”

While several prominent university presidents famously refused to say that advocating for the genocide of Jews violates school policy when pressed by Congress two months after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terror attacks, Kent Syverud, the president and chancellor of Syracuse University, wrote a campus-wide email explaining that such rhetoric would not be tolerated on campus. 

On Monday, Syverud was tapped as the University of Michigan’s 16th president following a six-month search to replace President Santa Ono. Syverud’s appointment was met with optimism from several Jewish leaders who said his strong ties to the Jewish community could benefit the Ann Arbor school, which experienced some of the most disruptive anti-Israel and antisemitic activity in the wake of the Oct. 7 attacks and the ensuing war in Gaza. 

“Syverud’s appointment is very good news for the University of Michigan, which has faced numerous incidents of antisemitism and anti-Israel hostility in recent years,” Miriam Elman, who was a tenured associate professor at Syracuse before joining the Academic Engagement Network as its executive director in 2019, told Jewish Insider. University of Michigan’s undergraduate student body is 15% Jewish, according to Hillel International. 

At Syracuse, Syverud supported the school’s large Jewish community, including engaging collaboratively with the campus Hillel and Chabad chapters, according to Elman. Syverud also met regularly with the leadership of the Jewish Federation of Central New York. 

Last May, at the federation’s invitation, he provided introductory remarks for a community-wide screening of the documentary “October 8,” a film about the world’s response to the Oct. 7 attacks. “He provided an update on the campus response to antisemitism for the hundreds of attendees and made it clear that it will never be tolerated,” said Elman.

“He is committed to the principles of the academy, including unfettered free expression and academic freedom, as well as to community safety,” continued Elman. “While other university leaders equivocated and failed, since Oct. 7, the [Syracuse] administration, under his leadership, has consistently enforced the student code of conduct and reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on protests and demonstrations.

University of Michigan’s Board of Regents voted unanimously to appoint Syverud, an accomplished legal scholar, during a special session on Monday. Syverud is returning to his Ann Arbor roots; he served as the law school’s associate dean for academic affairs from 1995 to 1997. He then served as law school dean of Vanderbilt University from 1997 to 2005 and later as the dean of the law school at Washington University in St. Louis from 2005 to 2013 before coming to Syracuse. 

University of Michigan Regent Jordan Acker, who was the target of anti-Israel vandals at his home and law office near campus several times in 2024, told JI he is “proud that Kent Syverud is returning to his alma mater as president.”

“His time at Syracuse, [and] his leadership at Washington University and Vanderbilt show a deep commitment to students, their welfare, and creating an environment for all to learn. I have no doubt he will continue that legacy as Michigan’s new president,” said Acker. 

Elman noted Syverud’s “steadfast rejection of BDS and the academic boycott of Israel and support for numerous educational opportunities for students and faculty to engage with Israeli universities and scholars.” 

“Syverud also understands the threats facing the Jewish people and the campus, recently noting that nefarious external actors, including Iran, seek to manipulate students, stoke divisions and cause mayhem,” continued Elman.

Alums for Campus Fairness praised Syverud and said the organization “looks forward to continuing our strong working relationship” with the incoming chancellor, who in October participated in a panel on campus antisemitism hosted by the group.

Syverud also participated in a 2024 summit on campus antisemitism for university presidents hosted by the American Jewish Committee, Hillel International and the American Council on Education. 

“AJC is heartened over the news that Kent Syverud will take on the presidency at the University of Michigan,” Sara Coodin, AJC’s director of academic affairs, told JI.” “Syverud brings a wealth of experience and measured, thoughtful and heartfelt engagement and commitment to fostering a positive campus culture and countering hate.”

In 2019, Syverud was recognized by the Simon Wiesenthal Center for suspending Syracuse fraternities that posted videos with antisemitic and racist statements. 

The search for Michigan’s next president began last summer after Ono stepped down following a tenure marked by post-Oct. 7 turbulence — including a nearly month-long encampment — until his resignation last spring. 

Ono, now inaugural director of the Ellison Institute of Technology, was generally seen as an ally of Michigan’s pro-Israel community who was quick to condemn acts of antisemitism — leading to pro-Palestinian vandals attacking his home on the one-year anniversary of Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack.  

Domenico Grasso, the former chancellor of the University of Michigan-Dearborn, currently serves as the university’s interim president. Syverud is expected to assume the position by July 1. 

Gordon Gee has served as president of more American universities than almost anyone, as far as he knows. Most recently he led West Virginia University, from which he retired in July; before that, he oversaw Ohio State, Vanderbilt, Brown and the University of Colorado over a span of 45 years. 

Alongside his various presidencies, Gee also helped open Hillel houses on two different campuses: Vanderbilt and Ohio State. It’s a distinction that makes him particularly well-suited to opine on the state of American higher education, which has been grappling with the thorny and sometimes intertwined issues of antisemitism, free speech and student conduct. 

A 2002 Wall Street Journal article attributed Vanderbilt’s decision to increase recruitment of Jewish students to Gee, himself a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. More than two decades later, under a successor Gee proudly claims, Vanderbilt is still courting Jewish students and positioning itself as a bastion of common sense amid the upheaval that followed the Oct. 7 attacks two years ago.   

As Gee, 81, looks back on his career and reflects on the state of academia, he sees a growing chasm between what he described as two different kinds of universities: those like Vanderbilt, that have held firm to the principles of institutional neutrality, and those like his alma mater, Columbia University, that have struggled to take an impartial stance in response to campus protests and antisemitism — and that are wary of making significant change. 

“One is the resistance. [They say] anything that comes out of the [Trump] administration, anything that they want, anything, it is just terrible,” Gee told Jewish Insider in an interview last week ahead of a keynote address at the annual conference of the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa. “The other are those institutions that are trying to determine a way to move forward and do so by knitting themselves together in different ways. Those are mainly the big public universities. Those are the real future of the American higher education system, and for Jewish students themselves.”

Immediately after Oct. 7, Gee called Rabbi Ari Berman, the president of Yeshiva University, and asked for help in recruiting other university presidents to sign onto a statement condemning the attacks, which was published in The Wall Street Journal as a full-page ad. But they were unable to get many of the big-name academic leaders they wanted. 

“The biggest challenge facing university presidents is fear,” said Gee. “I think the university presidents, in many ways, are paralyzed, and a lot of it is brought on by themselves, because of the fact that they allowed themselves to become kind of engaged in this ‘go along, get along’ response, and now all of a sudden, when they discover that they’ve got to take a stand, it’s becoming very difficult for many of them.”

“That was when I really started to discover that there’s no moral high ground on this with a number of people. It was very distressing to me,” Gee said. “I think that so many people were walking on eggshells. They didn’t want to have disruptions. They also didn’t want to speak out.”

Although anti-Israel protests took place at West Virginia University, there was no encampment there in the spring of 2024, as happened on dozens of campuses around the country that semester. As Gee watched other university administrators fail to respond in clear ways to the protests that often crossed a line into harassment and targeting of Jewish students, he saw administrators afraid of upsetting stakeholders on campus. 

“The biggest challenge facing university presidents is fear,” said Gee. “I think the university presidents, in many ways, are paralyzed, and a lot of it is brought on by themselves, because of the fact that they allowed themselves to become kind of engaged in this ‘go along, get along’ response, and now all of a sudden, when they discover that they’ve got to take a stand, it’s becoming very difficult for many of them.”

Rather than protecting the free speech of pro-Israel students who were often cowed into silence by classmates, university leaders did little, Gee alleged. 

“They were silencing those who were intimidated by it, those who were pro-Israel, those who wanted to speak up in terms of balance,” said Gee. “University administrators were allowing that to happen.”

As President Donald Trump has sought to make his mark on higher education by targeting campus antisemitism and going after university diversity programs, Gee does not share the same skepticism toward Trump’s proposals that has characterized the responses of many university administrators who worry the administration’s actions are too heavy-handed.

In recent weeks, the Trump administration has approached several top universities about signing onto a compact that would give them preferential access to federal funds. No university has yet signed on, with administrators claiming it amounts to government infringement on their academic freedom. Gee — generally a skeptic of federal meddling in higher education — isn’t entirely opposed.

“If the Obama administration were doing exactly the same thing, people would cheerfully say, ‘Oh, that’s right, and that’s what we’re going to do,’” said Gee. “A lot of it has to do with the people in power, and I can understand that to some extent, but it doesn’t mean to say that the ideas are bad.” 

“Three-quarters of it is exactly what universities ought to be doing. A quarter of it probably is a bridge too far,” Gee explained. “But the very fact that a political administration, this Republican administration, can take on universities, and successfully so in many ways, has shown how the relationship between universities and the general public has deteriorated.” 

While Trump’s approach may have come from a genuine concern about the academic environment, “they’ve used that not as a scalpel, but as a sledgehammer,” said Gee. Still, he thinks the vehement opposition in many corners of academia has to do with the messenger.

“If the Obama administration were doing exactly the same thing, people would cheerfully say, ‘Oh, that’s right, and that’s what we’re going to do,’” said Gee. “A lot of it has to do with the people in power, and I can understand that to some extent, but it doesn’t mean to say that the ideas are bad.” 

Gee described himself as “always the optimist,” and said the current uncertainty facing academia — budget cuts, public distrust, a lack of understanding of its purpose — can be a “clarifying moment.”

“We need to understand we’re about teaching and learning. We’re not about propaganda. We’re not about ostracism. We’re not about making people feel inadequate if they don’t toe the line,” said Gee.

Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts doubled down on the influential conservative group’s support for Tucker Carlson, who has been leaning into increasingly explicit antisemitism and opposition to Israel on his podcast, and expressed unwillingness to “cancel” neo-Nazi influencer Nick Fuentes.

Roberts’ comments come after a friendly Carlson interview with Fuentes, in which Carlson described Christian Zionists as infected by a “brain virus.” Carlson said he dislikes Christian Zionists “more than anybody. Because it’s Christian heresy, and I’m offended by that as a Christian,” pointing to conservatives including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who has repeatedly sparred with Carlson over Israel and antisemitism, and Ambassador Mike Huckabee. On Wednesday, reports arose that Heritage had scrubbed references to Carlson from one of its donation pages.

Roberts, in a video posted on X on Thursday amid online discussion of Heritage’s relationship with Carlson, said he refused to cancel Carlson or Fuentes and that the group would “always” defend Carlson from the “pressure” of the “globalist class.”

“When it serves the interest of the United States to cooperate with Israel and other allies, we should do so with partnerships on security, intelligence and technology. But when it doesn’t, conservatives should feel no obligation to reflexively support any foreign government, no matter how loud the pressure becomes from the globalist class or from their mouthpieces in Washington,” Roberts said. “The Heritage Foundation didn’t become the intellectual backbone of the conservative movement by canceling our own people or policing the consciences of Christians, and we won’t start doing that now.”

He said the group would “always defend our friends against the slander of bad actors who serve someone else’s agenda. That includes Tucker Carlson, who remains — and as I have said before — always will be a close friend of the Heritage Foundation.”

Roberts rejected those criticizing Carlson as a “venomous coalition” and said that “their attempt to cancel him will fail.” 

He added that it is the responsibility of Heritage to attack the left, not to criticize those on the right. “I disagree with and even abhor things that Nick Fuentes says, but canceling him is not the answer either,” Roberts continued.

Roberts, whose group assembled the Project Esther plan to combat antisemitism — focused on anti-Israel left-wing groups — also said in the video, “I want to be clear about one thing, Christians can critique the State of Israel without being antisemitic. And of course antisemitism should be condemned.”

Roberts quoted a statement by Vice President JD Vance at a Turning Point USA event on Wednesday: “What I am not OK with is any country coming before the interest of American citizens. And it is important for all of us, assuming we are American citizens, to put the interest of our own country first. That’s where our allegiance lies, and that’s where it will stay.”

Roberts’ comments come amid an uproar from pro-Israel conservatives about Vance’s response to an antisemitic question he faced from a member of the audience at that event.

The questioner declared that Judaism does “not agree with [our religion] but also openly supports the [persecution] of ours,” to enthusiastic applause from the crowd.

Vance said in his response, “When people say that Israel is somehow manipulating or controlling the president of the United States — they’re not controlling this president of the United States, which is one of the reasons why we’ve been able to have some of the success that we’ve had in the Middle East.”

He said that the Gaza peace deal was only possible because President Donald Trump was “actually… willing to apply leverage to the State of Israel.”

The vice president also said that ensuring Christian access to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem is an “obvious area of common interest” and that he is “fine” with working with Israel on the issue. “What I am not OK with is any country coming before the interests of American citizens,” he continued.

Vance did not address or condemn the questioner’s accusations that Jews are attempting to persecute Christians.

Fuentes has been celebrating the recent developments, posting on X, “The Groypers have taken over. We run this” in response to questions posed to Vance at the TPUSA event.

Responding to Roberts, Fuentes said, “I don’t know what exactly you ‘abhor’ about my views, but we can all agree that free speech, Christ, and America First should be the pillars of our movement. Thank you for your courage in standing up for open discourse and defending Tucker against the Israel First Woke Right.”

After an agreement was reached between Israel and Hamas to initiate the first stage of President Donald Trump’s ceasefire proposal in mid-October, the IDF retreated to an “initial withdrawal line,” leaving Israeli forces in control of 58% of the enclave as Israel and mediators push Hamas to release the remaining deceased hostages and comply with the rest of the agreement, including disarmament and relinquishing power. 

The line divides Gaza in two: an “East,” controlled by the IDF and serving as a buffer zone to Israel, and a “West,” run by Hamas and host to the concentrated Palestinian population.

In interviews with Jewish Insider, experts painted a picture of two Gazas, explaining that the area Israel holds can be used strategically to root out Hamas and maintain leverage if hostilities resume. But challenges lie ahead in rebuilding the enclave and moving Palestinians back into the eastern region.

“There are virtually no Palestinians living in the eastern part of Gaza beyond the yellow line. The eastern part does not see the movement and the maneuvers of Hamas. That’s still confined to the western part,” Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, a Gaza native and resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, told JI. “Actual civilians of Gaza are all entirely under Hamas’ control in the west.”

Alkhatib said Israel has kept Palestinians from returning to the east over security and operational concerns, but also as leverage.

“How do you ensure that you don’t have Hamas members embedding themselves into the civilians, as they have done time and again? How do you ensure that Gazans coming into the east aren’t hindering clearance operations of tunnels or unexploded munitions?” Alkhatib asked. “I also think that the return of Palestinians to beyond the ‘yellow zone’ is leverage that Israel is holding onto until phase one is thoroughly and fully complete.”

Vice President JD Vance, in Israel last week, said during his trip that Palestinians should be able to move into a “Hamas-free zone” in southern Gaza “in the next couple months.” But experts warned that the timeline will be difficult given the conditions on the ground.

David May, a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said Israel has developed technology to recognize Hamas fighters and could use it to allow non-combatants access to the area under Israeli control. But even if Israel can vet who enters, eastern Gaza has endured destruction comparable to the west, and serious concerns await displaced civilians.

“The ubiquitous tunnel system that Hamas has dug in Gaza, which no doubt traverses the yellow line that serves as the ceasefire line, limits Israel’s ability to provide a safe zone in the eastern portion of Gaza,” May told JI.

Palestinians who move into the Hamas-free zone and those working on rebuilding would also face the issue of land ownership, Alkhatib noted.

“Who owns these lands, and where do people have their homes? Every plot of land in Gaza is accounted for,” he said. “You can’t just rebuild Gaza without taking into consideration that you’re doing so over pieces of land and properties that belonged to people.”

“There could be a process in which that happens, regardless of any claims to the land,” Alkhatib continued. “Basically there could be a fund established that allows for the compensation of rightful owners. But beyond that, eastern Gaza could be developed to create a compelling example that others in Gaza want to be part of.”

Despite these challenges, experts say finding ways to take in Palestinians to east Gaza could isolate Hamas in the west — a strategy Israel could use to undermine the terrorist group’s authority and bring in international support for rebuilding.

“East Gaza under IDF control would become a Hamas-free zone where the world comes together to support the emergence of thriving new political, social and economic institutions where the lives of average Gazans would flourish,” said John Hannah, a senior fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. 

“Hamas-controlled west Gaza, by contrast, would be condemned to repression, stagnation and sustained misery. Over time, the east would become a huge magnet for the vast majority of Gaza’s population who would vote with their feet to live within a ‘free Gaza,’ fatally isolating and undermining Hamas rule and legitimacy,” Hannah continued.

May said this contrast can show Gazans “an alternative to life under Hamas’ corruption and oppression” and make donors more likely to contribute to rebuilding projects knowing aid won’t be intercepted by Hamas.

“If there is running water, sewer, electricity, internet, fixed roads and infrastructure, if there is something that resembles jobs and economic opportunity, and you create vetted methods for accepting incoming civilians into that area, then absolutely there could be a way in such that slowly drains the population out of west Gaza,” said Alkhatib.

However, Hannah argued that keeping half the enclave as a buffer zone could also serve Israel’s interests if fighting resumes.

“Right now, Israel controls an extensive buffer zone containing very few hostile Gazans standing between its border communities and Hamas-controlled west Gaza,” said Hannah. “How eager should [Israel] be to attract over a million or more Gazans to pick up and move much closer to Israel’s borders?”

May said Israel may have plenty of time to decide on how to proceed should Hamas continue to be uncooperative with the implementation of the rest of the first phase of the agreement. 

“There is still a lot up in the air,” said May. “As ceasefire lines in the Middle East have a tendency to become permanent borders, Israel needs to plan for the possibility of the yellow line becoming a long-term territorial marker.” 

Ireland is set to elect a new president tomorrow. Like in Israel, the role of president is largely ceremonial, but unlike in Israel, where the Knesset elects the president and the choice is mostly the result of backroom political deals, the Irish president is directly elected by the people.

That means the choice reflects the mood of the Irish public — and after the news coming out of the Emerald Isle over the past two years, it may come as no surprise that the country appears to be on the verge of choosing a candidate with anti-Israel, antisemitic and even anti-Western views.

The current president, Michael D. Higgins, is no friend of Israel or the Jews, having called antisemitism accusations an Israeli “PR exercise.” When the Jewish community asked him not to attend a Holocaust remembrance ceremony out of a concern that he would politicize it, he went anyway and gave a speech comparing Israel’s actions in the war in Gaza to the Holocaust.

The country’s former justice minister, Alan Shatter, told Jewish Insider that the leading candidate for the presidency, Catherine Connolly, “if elected, will present as Michael D. Higgins on steroids.”

Connolly, a legislator representing Galway West since 2016, is a hard-left candidate running as an independent, and led a recent Irish Times poll by 18 points. 

The front-runner’s anti-Israel history goes back to before the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel and the ensuing war in Gaza, and includes remarks that crossed the line into antisemitism. In 2021, Connolly wrote in a parliamentary question that Israel is “attempt[ing] to accomplish Jewish supremacy,” using language associated with centuries-old antisemitic conspiracy theories.

Since then, she has brought up Israel, which she calls a “terrorist state” or “an apartheid state,” in parliament over 200 times. One of those times was questioning the Irish Embassy in Tel Aviv joining an EU member embassies’ statement marking Holocaust Remembrance Day last year. 

Last month, she criticized calls to keep Hamas out of a future government for Gaza, saying that the terrorist organization is “part of the fabric of the Palestinian people.”

Her views have earned her the endorsement of the notorious Hezbollah-supporting Irish rapper duo Kneecap. 

Connolly has also said that the U.S. and EU cannot be trusted, and called President Donald Trump a bully. She has parroted Russian President Vladimir Putin’s line on his invasion of Ukraine, claiming that “NATO has played a despicable role in moving forward to the border and engaging in warmongering.” She also said that Russia’s attempt to assassinate Sergei and Yulia Skripal, a former Russian military intelligence officer and double agent for the British intelligence agencies and his daughter, should be viewed in the “context” of an EU and NATO missile buildup. 

Shatter said that Connolly “personifies the Irish left’s and Sinn Fein’s anti-Israel hostility … counting amongst her political supporters those who advocate Israel’s replacement by a Palestinian state. On social media she is supported by the entirety of the obsessive Israel-hating Irish social media community. … She regards the Irish government’s hostility towards Israel and anti-Israel action to date as insufficient.”

Connolly “is a product of the Irish government pandering to and adopting the narrative of Israel’s most extreme critics, and the government parties failing to nominate credible, articulate candidates,” Shatter argued. 

Shatter also pointed out that, while there are other issues on the national agenda, Connolly’s “hostility to Israel has [put her in] center stage.” In addition, he said that at many of her events, supporters have been “waving Palestinian flags as if the Irish flag has gone out of fashion.”

Perhaps the front-runner’s obsession with a conflict thousands of miles from Dublin and disconnected from key issues in Irish society is a reason why turnout is expected to hit a record low on Friday. “Of the big-ticket items in Irish society – for instance housing, race, climate change, unification – [the candidates] have had very little interesting things to say,” and the campaign “hasn’t inspired voters,” professor Kevin Rafter, a political scientist and the co-author of The Irish Presidency: Power, Ceremony and Politics, told The Guardian. 

The Senate confirmed former National Security Advisor Mike Waltz on Friday to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, capping off a monthslong confirmation process that was marred by delays just days before the start of the U.N. General Assembly next week. 

Waltz, a former congressman from Florida and a Green Beret, was confirmed by a 47-43 vote in the Senate on Friday afternoon, with three Democrats and one Republican crossing party lines. Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Fetterman (D-PA) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ) voted in favor of Waltz’s nomination, while Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) was the only Republican to oppose. 

Waltz’s journey to his current role began when President Donald Trump removed him from his post as White House national security advisor in late April and selected him to replace Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) as his pick for U.N. ambassador. The White House pulled Stefanik’s nomination in late March, more than two months after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had advanced her nomination, amid concerns that her absence in the House could hurt Republicans’ ability to govern with their slim majority.

The former national security advisor was facing heavy scrutiny at the time over the Signal chat incident in which Waltz inadvertently added Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg to a group chat of top national security officials discussing imminent strikes on the Houthis on the non-secure messaging app. Prior to the “Signalgate” incident, Waltz had already been viewed as a vulnerable target for ideological rivals and personal foes in the administration because of his hawkish approach on foreign policy. 

While Trump initially stood by Waltz, he eventually relented and in early May announced his intention to move the former congressman to the U.N. post. Waltz had already faced a setback after Trump fired six National Security Council officials whose views were aligned with Waltz. Their ouster was driven by an intervention by far-right activist Laura Loomer. 

Waltz, a staunch supporter of Israel and an outspoken critic of Iran, faced delays of his own during his Senate confirmation process this summer, with Paul siding with all Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee to block his nomination from advancing to the full Senate over concerns with Waltz’s national security and foreign policy positions. 

Shaheen eventually broke the stalemate in July, voting for Waltz because of his public and private support for continued U.S. global engagement than other figures in the administration, as well as potential alternatives Trump could nominate. 

Multiple outlets reported at the time that Shaheen, who is retiring next year, conditioned her support for Waltz on the Trump administration committing to providing $75 million in aid to Haiti and Nigeria, which had just been approved. Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), the chairman of the committee, told Jewish Insider that the aid package was not directly tied to Shaheen’s support for Waltz.

During his confirmation hearing that month, Waltz said he would serve as a blockade to “anti-Israel resolutions” in the U.N. General Assembly and vowed to push for the dismantlement of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency over some of its employees’ involvement in the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks. He also said he supported U.S. sanctions against Francesca Albanese, the U.N. special rapporteur for Israel and the Palestinian territories, amid widespread accusations she has espoused antisemitic rhetoric in her commentary on Israel.

Waltz will take over for Dorothy Shea, the career diplomat who filled the role in an acting capacity as chargé d’affaires during the nine-month vacancy. His first full week on the job will coincide with the General Assembly, bringing world leaders together in New York City for high-level discussions on issues ranging from Russia’s war in Ukraine to European countries’ push for Palestinian statehood.

Michael Schill, the Northwestern University president who announced his resignation last week amid widespread controversy over his tenure, appeared unfazed to hear that a Palestinian professor he hired as part of a deal with encampment protestors had once met with the late Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, an interview with the House Committee on Education and Workforce, released on Thursday, reveals. 

In the Aug. 5 interview, which was released as a response to Schill’s resignation announcement on Thursday, House investigators pressed Schill on the hiring of Mkhaimar Abusada as a visiting associate professor of political science. 

Abusada, who Schill described as “someone who is regularly quoted as an authority on Palestine governance and politics,” published a piece in Haaretz last year about his 2018 meeting with Sinwar. 

“Hypothetically, if somebody, you know, 4 years, 5 years before Oct. 7 has met with someone who — and, I mean, I’m not sure — my guess is — I’ve never been to Gaza, but it’s a pretty small place, and that you are going to meet people and talk to people,” said Schill, who claimed to not be aware of that meeting when he hired Abusada but noted in the interview that the professor’s position had been extended to August 2026. “I don’t know whether a seasoned professor who is doing the politics of Gaza could avoid getting to know some of these people, or whether that would be not doing his job right.”

Schill, who will remain as president in an interim role until his successor is chosen, oversaw a period of antisemitic turmoil on the Chicago-area campus after the Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attacks and was accused of failing to respond in an adequate manner, leading some lawmakers to call for his resignation. 

The 135-page interview transcript provides new, detailed information on Schill’s response to years of campus turbulence, including his controversial handling of a violent anti-Israel encampment in spring 2024 and the university’s close ties to Hamas-allied Qatar. 

The interview comes as Northwestern is in talks with the Trump administration to restore $790 million in funding for the university that was pulled by the federal government over an alleged failure to protect Jewish students.

Jewish alumni expressed optimism that Schill’s resignation, and the interview being made public, would lead to Northwestern leaders making necessary reforms. 

“Northwestern’s board needs to take control of the situation in a way they have declined to until now [and] clear out all other administrators who have been part of this culture of enabling antisemitism on campus,” Rich Goldberg, a senior advisor at Foundation for Defense of Democracies who holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Northwestern, told Jewish Insider. 

“Those who are negotiating on behalf of the Trump administration, now seeing this transcript, will need to review any additional information that’s come to light, additional questions that they might have for the university, see if this changes anything that’s been under negotiation to date, and with Schill stepping down, hopefully signaling the board of the university wanting to see real changes made,” Goldberg continued.

Michael Teplitsky, president of the Coalition Against Antisemitism At Northwestern, said that Abusada “should never have been at Northwestern.” 

“There must be a massive turnaround and restructuring at the university and they have to make meaningful changes,” said Teplitsky. 

When anti-Israel encampments emerged on college campuses across the country in spring 2024, Schill, who is Jewish, became the first university president to strike a deal with demonstrators. The deal included no disciplinary action taken against students and acceded to several demands of the protesters, which drew strong condemnation from many Jewish leaders. Among other concessions, Schill committed to hire two Palestinian professors, which would include Abusada, and offer full scholarships to five students from Gaza. 

Schill acknowledged in the interview that — despite telling Congress that “discipline has been meted out to many of those students” who participated in the encampment and other antisemitic incidents on campus — no students had actually faced disciplinary action for anti-Israel activity on campus. Schill said that the university had reason to believe some demonstrators could be armed and claimed that university leadership had no option but to negotiate with the encampment organizers because they were dangerous. The university was afraid to send in the police to remove them, he said. 

“We didn’t think our students were armed, but we didn’t know,” Schill told the House committee. “There was a suspicious tent off to the side, and we knew that our students were trying to avoid the people in that tent, and we didn’t know what was inside the tent. And so we were concerned about that.”

The released testimony also puts a spotlight on Northwestern Provost Kathleen Hagerty’s support for the encampment and BDS activism on campus, which Schill argued she may have viewed as a “teachable moment.”  

In a series of exposed text messages, Hagerty wrote that “if the students really cared about actual divestment, then they need the patience to do the work to actually make it happen.” 

In an April 27 text exchange with a professor, Hagerty wrote that for Northwestern to boycott Sabra, an Israeli hummus company that is sold at the university, it would “probably be pretty easy,” adding that she is “all for making a deal.” 

Schill responded to the text messages by highlighting his support for the Jewish state. “I view Israel as our number one strategic partner in the world,” he said. 

“I don’t think [Schill] is the only administrator that needs to go,” said Goldberg. “Clearly the provost needs to follow him out the door as someone who is also chiefly responsible for the culture of enabling antisemitism at the university and implementing the encampment appeasement.” 

The interview also raised new questions around Northwestern’s relationship with Qatar. Schill said that students on Northwestern’s Qatar campus are exempted from completing the university’s mandatory antisemitism training and acknowledged several examples of professors on the Qatar campus engaging in extreme pro-terrorism and antisemitic activism and speech on social media. 

He said that Northwestern’s contract with Qatar prevents it or its affiliates from criticizing the country. “NU, NU-Q, and their respective employees, students, faculty, families, contractors and agents, shall be subject to the applicable laws and regulations of the State of Qatar, and shall respect the cultural, religious and social customs of the State of Qatar,” said Schill. He said that Qatar has given Northwestern $737 million since 2008. 

“The initial deal to put a campus out in Qatar was put together, it was in the era after 9/11,” Teplitsky told JI. “I think people had hopes and ambitions to build bridges in the Middle East, in Qatar. It had wonderful intentions. I think now looking back and looking at it specifically through the lens of Northwestern University… looking at it from a perspective of … values that Northwestern lists on its website, that relationship has not been a good one. It’s been one of failure. 

Teplitsky continued, “Should Northwestern be registered, as long as they continue to have this campus, with the Department of Justice as a foreign agent? I believe that they should have to register as a foreign agent if they choose to continue to have this campus.” 

Jewish Insider Senior Congressional Correspondent Marc Rod contributed reporting. 

Seb Gorka, the White House senior director for counterterrorism and a deputy assistant to the president, aired his grievances with the anti-Israel faction within the Republican Party on Tuesday, alleging that the wing of the GOP aligned with podcast host Tucker Carlson is  “basically Pat Buchanan in a new guise.”

Gorka made the comments in a conversation on counterterrorism and U.S. strategy at the Hudson Institute after being pressed on the foreign policy disputes within the MAGA movement and Carlson’s grievances with President Donald Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities in June. 

Asked by moderator Michael Doran, a Hudson senior fellow and director of the Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East, if he was comfortable addressing the growth of anti-Israel, antisemitic sentiment on right-wing podcasts and social media, Gorka replied, “Yeah, I am, because it bothers me immensely, but I’ve come to a certain realization with regards to that, that this wing of isolationism is nothing new. We had this 100 years ago.”

“This is just a poor, substandard repackaging of neo-Buchananite isolationism,” Gorka said, referencing Buchanan, the former Nixon communications director who became an outspoken critic of Israel. “It’s actually a more shallow version. Pat is far smarter than this version of isolationism.”

Gorka said that he is “actually in a better place with” the onslaught of anti-Israel rhetoric from Carlson’s wing of the party than he was previously, explaining that he realized that most of the rhetoric was coming from “probably half a dozen very loud people on Twitter and Rumble,” the right-wing video platform. 

“You get out of the miasma, the cesspit that is social media, and you talk to representative MAGA voters, of the 80 million that put the president back in the White House, they don’t think that we should pull down the shutters on the Pacific and the Atlantic coast,” Gorka explained. “They don’t think that Israel is the reason for Oct. 7. They actually have a very special place in their heart for Israel, and they don’t think that hospitals being bombed in Ukraine is a good thing because somebody offered NATO membership to Ukraine, allegedly, a decade ago.”

“As an immigrant to this country, a legal immigrant to the United States, one of the most trenchant indicative characteristics for me of the American people is common sense. They understand who is responsible for Oct. 7. They understand who [Russian President] Vladimir Putin is. And as such, I was worried by this neo-Buchanan isolationism, but I look at President Trump’s actions, they have no hold on him,” he continued.  

Gorka then pointed to the early days of the first Trump administration, alleging that at the time, then-Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson expressed hesitation about moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem out of fear that doing so would cause a third world war. 

Gorka said that Trump told concerned members of his Cabinet at the time that they were going through with the move because, “A) We promised the people of Israel 23 years ago, and we’ve broken that promise every six months of 23 years. B) I promised the American electorate in the campaign. We’re doing it. And C) It’s the right thing to do.” He argued that the “moral clarity” shown by Trump on issues impacting Israel highlighted the contrast between the president and his detractors on foreign policy matters. 

Earlier in the program, Gorka told Doran that the president’s approach to the Middle East was heavily focused on combating Iran.

“You need to understand one thing: When the president looks at the region, he doesn’t slice it down into cylinders of excellence. He doesn’t care if you’re the Syrian desk officer or the natural resources expert. He has one overlay for the whole AOR [Area of Responsibility], and that one metric, that one prism, is Iran, and he’s absolutely right,” Gorka said. “Iran is front and center in everything we do in the region, because they remain the greatest state sponsor terrorism, and the world would be a much safer place if that were not the case.”

Gorka noted that when Trump is asked by reporters about anything related to national security, “more than 50% of the time … the president will bring up Iran,” adding that this was “especially” the case “before [Operation] Midnight Hammer, because it really is on his mind that this is the threat. A nuclear Iran, an ideologically Islamo-fascist regime that wishes to acquire the most dangerous weapons in the world, is a threat to all decent peoples.”

Turning his attention to Israel, Gorka argued that the Jewish state’s “post-Oct. 7 operations have rewritten the map of the Middle East for the next 50 to 100 years.” He praised Israel’s military moves in Syria and Lebanon, crediting the IDF with taking down the Assad regime in Damascus and significantly weakening Hezbollah. 

As for whether the U.S. will undertake additional operations in the region to target Iranian proxies, Gorka said the “jury is still out on that,” but praised Trump’s strikes against the Houthis. 

“We had great success with our operation against the Houthis. Again, it wasn’t well understood by the so-called experts. For the president, the action against the Houthis was about one thing and one thing alone. When we told him there had been 150 attacks against U.S. vessels going through the Straits and that they’d actually fired on naval vessels as well, he said, ‘Well, that will not be allowed to stand.’ It’s not just about U.S. interests [but] about global freedom of maritime transport. So all of these things are connected,” Gorka said of Trump’s motivation to strike the Iran-backed Yemeni terror group. 

Gorka also disputed the notion that the president was tied down by ideological labels, but rather that he’s focused on achieving results and fixing problems: “Here’s the trouble for the Beltway with understanding the current commander in chief: there is no ideological taxonomy into which he will fall.”

President Donald Trump decried the humanitarian situation in Gaza on Monday, telling reporters that he does “not particularly” agree with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assessment that there is no starvation taking place in the enclave.

“That’s real starvation stuff,” Trump said, following a meeting in Scotland with U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer. “I see it, and you can’t fake that.” 

Trump said the U.S. will be getting “even more involved” in taking steps toward addressing hunger in Gaza, including by setting up “food centers.” A White House spokesperson declined to comment when asked for specifics about what this plan might entail. Trump said “all of the European nations” would be part of the project. 

“We’re going to do it in conjunction with some very good people, and we’re going to supply funds,” said Trump.

Food distribution in Gaza is currently being operated by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which is backed by both the U.S. and Israel. The organization has faced criticism for failing to meet the needs of Gazans, and scenes of chaos at the gates of its distribution centers have spread online.

Without mentioning GHF by name, Trump appeared to take aim at the existing aid mechanisms, saying that the new “food centers” will not have fences to keep people out. 

“We’re also going to make sure that they don’t have barriers stopping people here. You’ve seen the areas where they actually have food, and the people are screaming for the food in there, they’re 35-40 yards away, and they won’t let them because they have lines that are set up,” said Trump. “And whether they’re set up by Hamas or whoever, but they’re very strict lines. We have to get rid of those lines.” 

Trump blamed Hamas for the failure of recent ceasefire talks and for prolonging the war, including the humanitarian crisis. The president’s comments come after European leaders have pressed Israel to allow a freer flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza.

“We have a good group of countries who can help with the humanitarian needs, which is food, sanitation, some other things. It’s very difficult to deal with Hamas,” said Trump. “Hamas has become very difficult to deal with in the last couple of days, because they don’t want to give up these last 20 [hostages], because they think as long as they have them, they have protection. But I don’t think it can work that way.” 

Fifty hostages remain in Gaza, and Israel believes at least 27 of them are dead. The most recent ceasefire proposal would only have seen the release of about half of the living hostages. 

Trump also said Iran played a role in the failure of ceasefire talks, saying Iran “interjected themselves in this last negotiation.” 

“I think they got involved in this negotiation, telling Hamas and giving Hamas signals and orders. And that’s not good,” Trump said. “For a country that just got wiped out, they’ve been sending very bad signals, very nasty signals. And they shouldn’t be doing that.”

Sebastian Gorka, the White House senior director for counterterrorism and a deputy assistant to the president, said Wednesday at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies that the U.S. is not seeking regime change in Iran, but will maintain its maximum-pressure campaign on Tehran.

Gorka also said that he supports efforts to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, suggested that he’s pursuing efforts to convince Qatar and Turkey to cut ties with Hamas and said the U.S. wants to see Syrian minority groups come to the table and join with the new Syrian government.

He said that the Trump administration views Iran as the paramount threat and focus in the Middle East, and that its strategy toward Iran is “max pressure, no regime change,” with the goal of stopping Iran’s nuclear program and ending its support for terrorist proxies.

“We are not in the business of deploying the 82nd Airborne to do regime changes anywhere. We don’t believe in that,” Gorka said. 

In the long term, he added, “we would like the people of Persia, including the minorities of Persia, to eventually liberate themselves.”

Trump had publicly floated the possibility of regime change in Iran after the U.S. strikes on the country last month, but subsequently said he does not seek regime change. Some administration officials had also floated the idea of sanctions relief for Iran.

Gorka said he backs efforts to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, describing the group as the “granddaddy” of all of the terrorist organizations that have attacked the United States and its allies for decades. 

“If we can designate, as we have, Hamas, which in its founding charter from 1984 says, ‘We are a chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood,’ then why haven’t we designated the Brotherhood itself?”

“So what I’ll say right now,” Gorka said, clearing his throat, is, “I like the idea,” he finished in a whisper.

Asked by Jewish Insider about whether the administration is working to end Turkey and Qatar’s sponsorship of Hamas, he said that he is “imminently traveling to that part of the world, so that should tell you something.”

He added that Turkey is an “important nation, it’s a geopolitical nation, it has a role to play with us as a NATO nation, but there are things I will be discussing with Ankara that I find leave me with a sense of unease,” including the Turkish government’s relationship with Hamas as well as reports that ISIS terrorists have been moving through Turkey.

“There has to be a balance between their conceptualization of the PKK threat,” Gorka said, referring to the Kurdish militant group, “and threats that we share, such as ISIS. I think that’s where the rebalance has to come.”

“With regards to Qatar, Qatar has … a very simple choice it has to make. Do you give any kind of succor to those who do not help in the stabilization of the region? That’s all I’m going to say,” he continued.

In Gaza, Gorka said that there “are a lot of good things happening at a tactical and operational level” on the ground, in that the U.S. is working to train anti-Hamas police and security units and that those units are “working quite closely with Israel.”

But, he said, “as far as I’m concerned, none of that goes anywhere until the political leadership changes,” saying that the “cultural issue” of widespread support in Gaza for Hamas and the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel is a problem that cannot be solved by a police force. “We need some brave men and women to say, ‘I am here to help fix Gaza.’”

Gorka framed President Donald Trump’s proposal for the U.S. to take over Gaza and relocate the Palestinian population as a negotiating tactic to motivate Middle Eastern countries to step up to take responsibility and invest in Gaza — though that investment hasn’t yet come to fruition.

Gorka, who said he regularly watched videos of ISIS and Al-Qaida’s brutal torture and murder of their victims, described footage of the atrocities committed by Hamas on Oct. 7 as far beyond anything he had ever seen before. “Nothing I’d watched in my two decades prepared me for what I saw that day.”

“I praise the government of Israel. I praise the IDF because what they have done in response is a redrawing of the map of the Middle East that will change your politics for at least a century,” Gorka said. “One of the greatest things they have done is to ensure that the strategic threat of Iran is now incapable of resupplying its proxies in the territory of Syria. God bless Israel for doing that. Now we have to finish the job. We have to make sure Iran stops supplying its proxies. We have to stabilize Syria.”

He added that, “despite the ideological way it has been exploited by certain actors here and elsewhere, the response to Oct. 7 has actually benefited us, because people have woken up to the horrors of modern … Jew hatred.”

The White House advisor said that the administration has told Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa that the U.S. “want[s] him to make Syria great again,” and that doing so will require bringing all elements of Syria to the table, including Kurds, Christians, Alawites and Druze. Additionally, the U.S. has told those minority groups, including Kurdish allies, that it does not support them making pushes for autonomy.

“Come to the table, because this is your shot,” Gorka said. “Get in on that deal, because it’s the only time it’s going to happen.”

In the short term, he said, the administration wants to make sure those minority communities can protect themselves and to “make sure the state sees an end to the massacre of whichever confessional community.”

Asked by JI about the possibility of Iranian retaliatory attacks in the United States, Gorka said that “because of how we boxed in Iran, they are basically forced to use surrogates. … They can’t deploy their own assets, which is a good thing. Beyond that, we take it very seriously and that’s all I can say right now.”

He highlighted other recent intercepted plots, including one in the United Kingdom, where Iran has attempted to utilize Iranian expatriates to attack the Israeli Embassy, adding that the group has also sought to employ domestic criminal groups to carry out operations on its behalf.

Gorka praised Israel’s operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon, and noted that the country’s new president, Joseph Aoun, studied under him at the National Defense University.

“The relationship is positive but it could be improved in terms of matching verbiage to actual results,” he said.

Gorka previewed U.S. plans for a “series of short efforts, high-intensity efforts to make the leading terror threats to America combat-inneffective, at which point our friends, our allies, our partners in the Middle East and elsewhere pick up the terrorist suppression operations.” The goal, he explained, is to prevent terrorist groups from being able to carry out operations on U.S. soil.

He said that the U.S. does not want to maintain a global presence permanently to counter terrorism, though he added that the U.S. is willing to maintain a “small footprint” in certain locations to address specific threats.

He also emphasized the need for the U.S.’ Muslim partner nations to lead efforts to counter jihadist narratives and recruiting efforts, and poke holes in jihadist ideology.

A bipartisan group of House members reintroduced a bill on Wednesday to allow the president to provide Israel with bunker-buster bombs — the heavy ordnance used by the U.S. against Iran’s Fordow and Natanz nuclear facilities — and the planes needed to drop them.

The bill is part of a long-standing effort led by Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), one of its lead sponsors, to give the administration the option to provide Israel the capabilities to act independently against Iran’s most highly fortified nuclear facilities. The legislation’s sponsors argue that it remains relevant even in the aftermath of the U.S. strikes in the event Iran attempts to reconstitute its nuclear program.

Transferring the systems — which are unique to the U.S. — to Israel has been seen by some experts as a way to ensure Israel has the ability to destroy underground nuclear sites in Iran while avoiding direct U.S. involvement in the conflict.

Stating that Israel and other U.S. allies should be “prepared for all contingencies if Iran pursues development of a nuclear weapon” and that the U.S. must “send a clear signal to Iran that development of a nuclear weapon will never be tolerated,” the bill authorizes the president, at his discretion, to take steps to transfer the bombs and aircraft to Israel for the purpose of striking Iran’s nuclear sites, if certain conditions are met.

If the president certifies to Congress that Iran has violated or changed its implementation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or reduced access for International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors such that they cannot fully verify Iran’s nuclear material and activities and that Israel has no other method to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, then the president would be authorized to transfer the bunker busters and aircraft.

Under the legislation, either the president or, by his delegation, the secretary of defense would be authorized to give the order to transfer the weapons.

Iran is currently in violation of its NPT obligations and has limited access for IAEA inspectors, enacting a law on Wednesday suspending cooperation with the body.

In advance of the potential transfer, the legislation authorizes the administration to build infrastructure in Israel to allow Israel to host and operate the relevant systems — which Israel currently does not have — including extended runways for the aircraft and facilities to house the aircraft and store the bunker busters. It also authorizes the administration to store bunker busters in U.S. facilities in Israel.

The legislation also allows the U.S. to train Israeli personnel in the use of the bunker busters, and to engage in joint research with Israel to improve U.S. weapons and develop weaponry to destroy Iran’s underground nuclear facilities and Hezbollah’s underground rocket storage sites.

The bill further states that the U.S. should “seek to extend limitations on Iran’s enriched uranium, including through engagement in multilateral diplomatic initiatives,” and notes that the legislation does not constitute an authorization for use of military force against Iran.

The bill is led by Gottheimer and Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), and co-sponsored by Reps. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), Juan Vargas (D-CA) and Tom Suozzi (D-NY).

“It’s a pivotal moment to see what happens in terms of Iran agreeing … not to develop a nuclear weapon or not, to continue their nuclear program proliferation or not, to let in monitors or not,” Gottheimer told Jewish Insider. “This [bill] is poised to see what Iran does moving forward, and obviously why it gives the president discretion to make the decision on selling these weapons to Israel.”

Gottheimer said that whether the bunker busters will be needed again in the future is “really dependent upon what Iran does next.”

“If Iran continues to develop its program, we cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” he said. “If Iran decides to reconstitute its program and move ahead and break out and go to 90% enrichment, I think you want to make sure that they’re strongly deterred from doing so.”

Lawler said that the bill is a “bipartisan stand to protect Israel and stop Iran’s nuclear threat. Iran’s uranium stockpile makes clear that the danger is real. This bill gives the president the authority to equip Israel with the tools and training they need to deter Tehran and make the world a safer place.”

Tyler Stapleton, the director of government relations at FDD Action, a lobbying group affiliated with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which is supporting the bill, said that, following the U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on Iran, “it remains critical that the U.S. continue to support Israel in training and equipping its forces to target and destroy fortified nuclear facilities that could be rebuilt in the coming years.”

“The United States should assist Israel in developing the capability to store bunker-buster munitions and create an aerial delivery system that can be deployed independently by Israeli forces if necessary,” Stapleton said. “Congress should authorize the Department of Defense to take these actions without delay, ensuring both the U.S. and Israel retain the operational flexibility needed to counter the ongoing threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will meet with President Donald Trump at the White House next Monday, a Trump administration official confirmed to Jewish Insider. 

The visit, which will come just two weeks after Trump announced a cease-fire between Israel and Iran, will be Netanyahu’s third Oval Office meeting this year. 

Ron Dermer, Israel’s strategic affairs minister, is in Washington this week for White House meetings about efforts to end the war in Gaza. “MAKE THE DEAL IN GAZA. GET THE HOSTAGES BACK!” Trump posted on Truth Social over the weekend. 

The Trump-Netanyahu meeting also comes after a lengthy post from the president slamming Israeli prosecutors’ corruption case against Netanyahu. 

“It is terrible what they are doing in Israel to Bibi Netanyahu. He is a War Hero, and a Prime Minister who did a fabulous job working with the United States to bring Great Success in getting rid of the dangerous Nuclear threat in Iran,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Saturday.

An Israeli court canceled hearings scheduled for this week in the case after Netanyahu requested a delay for classified security and diplomatic reasons.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday rebuked Republican isolationists who have argued it’s not necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, dismissing them as not being his true supporters.

“My supporters are for me. My supporters are America First and Make America Great Again,” Trump said from the Oval Office, in response to a question about the foreign policy debates between hawks and isolationists in the GOP base. “My supporters don’t want to see Iran have a nuclear weapon. … Very simple: If they think it’s OK for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, then they should oppose me.”

The president said he believes Iran would use a nuclear weapon if it had one.

“I don’t want to get involved either, but I’ve been saying for 20 years, maybe longer, that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said. “I’ve been saying it for a long time, and I think they were a few weeks away from having one.”

He highlighted apparent logical inconsistencies in isolationists’ position on the issue.

“The problem is they get themselves into a thing: They don’t want them to have nuclear, but then they say, ‘Well, we don’t want to fight,’” Trump said. “Well, you’re going to have to make a choice because it’s possible that you’re going to have to fight for them not to have nuclear.”

Trump softened some of his previous criticism of Tucker Carlson, a prominent voice in isolationist circles whom the president had rebuked earlier this week for railing against U.S. support for Israel. He said that Carlson had called him to apologize.

Trump said he’d pressed Carlson on whether he would accept a nuclear-armed Iran, and said that Carlson “sort of didn’t like that. I said, ‘Well, if it’s OK with you, then you and I do have a difference,’ but it’s really not OK with him.”

“Therefore, you may have to fight and maybe it’ll end, and maybe it’ll end very quickly, but there’s no way that you can allow — whether you have to fight or not — you can have Iran to have a nuclear weapon, because the entire world will blow up,” Trump continued.

Trump said he planned to hold a meeting in the Situation Room on Wednesday afternoon to discuss the situation in the Middle East, but said he would delay a decision on striking Iran as long as possible.

“I like to make the final decision one second before it’s due,” he said. “With war, things change. It can go from one extreme to the other. War is very bad. There was no reason for this to be a war.”

The president said that the United States is the only country with the capabilities to destroy the deeply buried Fordow nuclear facility, but reiterated that he had not yet made the decision to do so.

Trump said that the success of Israel’s operations on their first night of bombing raids last week had made him more willing to consider possible U.S. involvement and strikes.

He also sent somewhat mixed messages on whether he’s open to continued talks with Iran.

“I had a great deal for them. They should have made that deal. Sixty days we talked about it, and in the end they decided not to do it. And now they wish they did it, and they want to meet,” Trump said. “It’s a little late to meet, but they want to meet and they want to come to the White House … so we’ll see. I may do that. It’s a shame, it could have been done the easy way.”

He said that he’s seeking “total complete victory” over Iran, in which it cannot have nuclear weapons.

“Iran was very close to signing what would have been a very good agreement for them and maybe that could still happen, I guess,” he said, adding that Iranian negotiators’ interest in visiting the White House is “a big statement, but it’s very late.”

Trump also noted that it may be difficult for Iranian negotiators to actually leave the country to visit the White House for negotiations.

The latest comments appeared somewhat less aggressive than Trump’s warnings the previous day that the U.S. could assassinate Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Trump today was largely noncommittal on the issue of regime change in Iran saying, “Sure, anything could happen. That? That could happen.”

While the last two months have been an exercise in diplomacy for Trump administration officials, who have crisscrossed the Middle East and Europe in an attempt to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program, the last 24 hours have seen a sharp pivot from President Donald Trump to a more hard-line approach to Tehran.

“UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER,” the president posted on his Truth Social site on Tuesday afternoon, understood to be a message to Iran after more than five days of Israeli attacks meant to degrade Tehran’s military and nuclear infrastructure. Iranian reprisals have paralyzed Israel, but resulted in damage that has fallen far short of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s threats. Khamenei responded on Wednesday that “the Iranian nation will not surrender.”

The president’s post, made following his early departure from the G7 summit in Alberta, Canada, but before his Situation Room sit-down with senior advisors, signaled Trump’s new approach to the regional conflict.

Trump’s latest comments underscore his shift away from the isolationist elements of the GOP that have dominated his administration since a purge of more traditional foreign policy-minded Republicans, including former National Security Advisor Mike Waltz. As The New York Times’ Ross Douthat wrote on Tuesday, Trump’s isolationist supporters “imagined that personnel was policy, that the realists and would-be restrainers in Trump’s orbit would have a decisive influence. That was clearly a mistake, and the lesson here is that Trump decides and no one else.”

As the president’s position further crystalized — also Tuesday, he called Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei an “easy target,” but said the U.S. would not assassinate him, “at least not for now” — his post-G7 rhetoric trickled down to his inner circle.

Trump “may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment,” Vice President JD Vance posted on X yesterday. “That decision ultimately belongs to the president. And of course, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy. But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue. … Whatever he does, that is his focus.”

It’s a notable shift from Vance, too, who has been one of the most prominent opponents of preemptive military action in the Middle East. (Vance opposed U.S. strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen earlier this year.)

Journalist Eli Lake noted on Tuesday that Trump’s “inner circle deliberating on Iran policy is very small and has been fairly tight-lipped,” adding that those advising him on Iran include Vance, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Lake said, is “occasionally” part of the group, but was absent from recent Camp David conversations about Israel and Iran.

On Capitol Hill, while Republicans appear publicly split on the level of involvement that the U.S. should have in the conflict — from working with Israel to destroy the Fordow nuclear facility to forcing Iran’s hand in diplomatic talks — JI’s conversations with legislators indicate a different approach behind the scenes. One senior Republican senator who requested anonymity to discuss internal conference dynamics estimated that nearly the entire GOP conference is privately united on the issue of the U.S. supporting Israel in bombing the Fordow facility if Israel needs such support. Read more from JI’s Emily Jacobs and Marc Rod here.

“I think the president has struck the right position,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) told JI earlier this week, “which is supportive of Israel’s right of self-defense, which is what this really is, and supporting them publicly while they defend themselves. I think that’s the right position to stick on.” Read more of Hawley’s comments here.

Trump has “handled this situation very deftly,” Hawley added. “I think his message has been pretty clear, which is that Iran is not going to get a nuke. So they can either surrender their nuclear program peaceably, and he’s willing to [have] the United States facilitate that, or the Israelis are going to blow their program to smithereens. Right now they’re choosing the smithereens route.”

President Donald Trump confirmed reports that he warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a phone call last week not to proceed with plans to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities while the U.S. and Iran continue negotiations, saying that he told the Israeli leader a strike “is not appropriate right now.” 

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Wednesday, the president responded to a question about the validity of the report by saying, “I’d like to be honest. Yes, I did.”

Pressed about the nature of the conversation, the president clarified, “It’s not a warning, I said I don’t think it’s appropriate. We’re having very good discussions with them [Iran] and I don’t think it’s appropriate right now.”

Trump suggested the U.S. may strike a “very strong document” with Iran “where we can go in with inspectors, we can take whatever we want, we can blow up whatever we want but nobody’s getting killed. We can blow up a lab but nobody’s going to be in the lab, as opposed to everybody being in the lab and blowing it up, right? Two ways of doing it.”

He affirmed he told Netanyahu to hold off “because we’re very close to a solution. Now, that could change at any moment. It could change with a phone call. But right now I think they want to make a deal and if we can make a deal, save a lot of lives.”

He said a deal with Iran could be reached “over the next couple of weeks.”

Netanyahu, for his part, denied a New York Times report that he had been pressing for military action against Iran, which could upend the talks, calling it “fake news.” 

On the new U.S.-Israel aid distribution mechanism in Gaza that went into effect this week, Trump said, “We’re dealing with the whole situation in Gaza. We’re getting food to the people.” 

Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, speaking beside Trump, added, “I think that we are on the precipice of sending out a new terms sheet that hopefully will be delivered later on today. The president is going to review it. And I have some very good feelings about getting to a long-term resolution — temporary ceasefire and a long-term resolution, a peaceful resolution of that conflict.” Witkoff did not expand on the details of the “terms sheet” nor to whom it will be delivered. 

President Donald Trump said he’d be open to meeting directly with Iran’s president or Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but also suggested that the U.S. could attack Iran to keep it from acquiring a nuclear weapon, in an interview with Time magazine, released on Friday.

When asked if he would consider such a meeting, the president responded, “Sure.”

Pressed if he is worried Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could “drag you into a war” with Iran, Trump responded, “No. By the way, he may go into a war. But we’re not getting dragged in.” The president clarified that he did not mean the U.S. wouldn’t join a war if Israel initiates one: “You asked if he’d drag me in, like I’d go in unwillingly. No, I may go in very willingly if we can’t get a deal. If we don’t make a deal, I’ll be leading the pack.”

Trump further denied reports that he had stopped Israel from carrying out plans to strike Iran, but affirmed that he is unsupportive of an attack without attempting negotiations. “It’s not right. I didn’t stop them. But I didn’t make it comfortable for them, because I think we can make a deal without the attack. I hope we can,” he said. “It’s possible we’ll have to attack because Iran will not have a nuclear weapon. But I didn’t make it comfortable for them, but I didn’t say no. Ultimately I was going to leave that choice to them, but I said I would much prefer a deal than bombs being dropped.”

Asked why his administration is revoking visas from and beginning to deport hundreds of foreign students, Trump said, “Tremendous antisemitism at every one of those rallies.” The president said he’s unconcerned about “intimidating students or chilling free speech” through this policy: “They can protest, but they can’t destroy schools like they did with Columbia and others.”

He said he would “look into” having the Department of Justice provide evidence that Tufts University graduate student Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish national who was detained by plainclothes federal agents on March 25, has ties to Hamas as the government has alleged, but he’s “not aware of the particular incident.”

On Saudi-Israel normalization, the president said he is confident that Saudi Arabia will join the Abraham Accords, “and by the way, I think it will be full very quickly.”

Despite President-elect Donald Trump’s push for a deal to secure the release of the remaining hostages in Gaza before his inauguration, some Republicans are raising concerns that the terms of the agreement currently being negotiated could hurt Israel’s ability to defend itself and eliminate future terrorist threats. 

Details are still being finalized on the deal, which could be announced in the coming days, but it includes a 42-day cease-fire between Israel and Hamas that requires the IDF to evacuate from the heavily populated areas of Gaza to the edges of the Gaza Strip. It will also swap dozens of hostages for hundreds of Palestinian terrorists in Israeli prisons, with 30 prisoners released for each civilian hostage and 50 prisoners for each female soldier. 

The agreement has been in the works under the outgoing Biden administration, with talks falling apart several times in the last year. Negotiations picked up again after the U.S. election in November, when President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Tony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan kicked their efforts to reach a deal before leaving office into overdrive. The team also began updating Trump and Steve Witkoff, the president-elect’s incoming Middle East envoy, on the talks.

Terms of the deal have not changed since Trump and Witkoff got involved, though the speed at which progress has been made has increased since the president-elect reiterated last week that “all hell will break loose” in the region if Hamas did not return the remaining hostages by the time he was sworn in. “I don’t want to hurt your negotiation,” Trump said to Witkoff before issuing the threat last Tuesday. “If they’re [the hostages] not back by the time I get into office, all hell will break out in the Middle East.”

Behind the scenes, congressional Republicans have begun fretting that Trump could force them to back a deal that involves terms they’ve opposed for over a year. Some lawmakers and senior staffers have privately discussed the issue among themselves, though none of them have taken additional steps beyond engaging with Trump’s transition team about their concerns. 

None of the GOP lawmakers who spoke to Jewish Insider for this story praised or defended the terms of the deal as it is currently written. The few GOP lawmakers willing to voice their skepticism publicly pointed to specific details that worried them. 

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) said that he was “really in the skeptical column for anything related to Hamas.” Tillis expressed concern that the terror organization was included in negotiations at all.

“I feel like they’re the wrong people to be brokering the deal because, in some respects, that means you’re a part of the future of Gaza. That’s a bad thing,” Tillis told JI. 

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said that while he wasn’t read up on the specifics of the deal as it currently stands, he had reservations about some of the terms negotiated under the outgoing administration, pointing to the release of Palestinian terrorists being held in Israeli prisons. 

“The Biden administration hasn’t shown itself to be a very effective negotiator, period,” Cornyn told JI. “I’d be concerned that he [Biden] negotiated a bad deal, which would be consistent with everything he’s done the last four years. ​​While I would applaud the release of the hostages, I am concerned that Hamas is incentivized to take more hostages so they can trade them for more prisoners.”

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) said that he viewed the release of all remaining hostages and the complete surrender of Hamas as critical components for a deal. “I’d want all the hostages back and I’d want Hamas to drop their weapons,” Scott said of his conditions to support an agreement. 

“My attitude is that the way to end this is for Hamas to surrender,” Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) told JI when asked about the deal. “I think it’s up to Israel to decide how this should work. It’s about Israel’s security.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) did not criticize the deal directly, but rather argued that the Biden administration’s inability to get the hostages released paired with Trump’s recent threats against Hamas proved that pressuring Israel had prolonged the conflict. 

“Everyone knows that Hamas was emboldened to extend their war against Israel, and keep these hostages in unimaginable hell, because Hamas leaders were hoping that the Biden administration would force Israel to capitulate. Everyone also knows that the hostages would not be getting out without President Trump’s threat to unleash hell against Hamas and its patrons,” Cruz told JI in a statement. “The fundamental lesson from the first Trump administration remains just as true today as it was four years ago: The way to secure peace and stability in the Middle East is to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our Israeli allies.”

Given the opportunity to speak anonymously, most Republicans said they thought the deal needed to be renegotiated or tossed altogether. Two sources told JI that the Trump team had responded to their concerns by arguing that this deal served as the best vehicle to deliver on the president-elect’s promise to get this done by his first day back in office. 

“To me the fundamentals of this deal are flawed. My heart goes out to the victims’ families, but what we’re trying to do is to also make sure that we have something that has staying power and gives us certainty that there’s not going to be another tranche of victims,” one Republican senator said. “I’m not sure that we’re there yet. I don’t know that this deal works practically, so regardless of what may occur in the waning hours of the Biden administration, I believe that there are going to be additional requirements for the new administration to impose.”

“If we’re not getting basic concessions like every hostage returned or other guarantees, then what are we getting out of this Biden deal? I don’t see how it is sustainable if Hamas is still in the picture,” another GOP senator told JI. 

Those who responded optimistically to the developments largely focused on Trump’s influence in moving the deal along after multiple failed efforts to bring the remaining hostages home. They did not, however, praise the deal itself. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said that he hadn’t been tracking the most recent developments, “but obviously, any news that suggests we’re coming closer to a resolution in that part of the world would be welcome news.”

Asked if he was confident Trump and Witkoff wouldn’t endorse a deal that hurt Israel, Thune answered affirmatively. “I haven’t followed closely, but I’m aware of some of the conversations that have been engaged in around those issues. Yes, I am confident. I think President Trump and Mr. Witkoff will be very careful to ensure that Israel’s interests are protected and preserved.”

Another GOP senator, speaking on condition of anonymity, told JI, “I’m not worried about Trump accepting a deal that isn’t strong enough for Israel, because I can’t imagine [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu would feel that kind of pressure to take a weak deal.”

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) says he worried that Biden, Blinken and Sullivan would take any deal as they depart the White House because they were “trying to create their legacy.” Regardless, he said he would get behind an agreement if Trump and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Trump’s nominee to be secretary of state, gave it their blessing. 

“Unless Trump and Rubio sign off on it, I wouldn’t support it. If they can look me in the eye and tell me that this does not hurt Israel’s effort to destroy Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthi rebels, then I would consider it,” Kennedy told JI.

Kennedy added that any deal must “keep that Philadelphi corridor secure, because that’s how the weapons are getting in. They’re coming in from Egypt.”

A spokesperson for Trump did not respond to JI’s request for comment.

Georgia is used to political dynasties. The daughter of former Senator Sam Nunn and the grandson of President Jimmy Carter have both run for statewide office in recent years, while incumbent Senator David Perdue is the first cousin of former governor and current Trump cabinet member Sonny Perdue. But Georgians aren’t used to dynasties coming from other parts of the country.

Democrat Matt Lieberman is hoping to change that in 2020. The suburban Atlanta businessman and son of former Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) is the first candidate to jump into Georgia’ special election for the U.S. Senate. The seat is currently held by Johnny Isakson, who will resign at the end of the year. Isakson’s departure, announced earlier this year, will prompt Republican governor Brian Kemp to appoint a replacement who will try to hold the seat in a non-partisan special election in November 2020.

Lieberman enters the race as a relative political unknown, despite his famous father. Howard Franklin, a Democratic political strategist in Georgia, told JI that he didn’t think Lieberman’s entry would keep other well-known names out of the race. Lieberman had not even been on the radar of well-connected Democrats in the state until recently.

In an interview with Jewish Insider earlier in October, Lieberman joked that he was winning “in a blowout” as the only declared candidate in this race. A businessman and former principal at a Jewish day school, Lieberman said he hadn’t expected to run for office, despite his upbringing. “Honestly, I thought about it at a much, much younger age coming out of law school, and I hadn’t thought about it in 20 years,” said the Democratic Senate hopeful. “I have not been positioning or angling for this. I am truly running as an outsider as a fed up citizen of Georgia and for the fed up citizens of Georgia and I think I got to a point where a lot of us are right now, I couldn’t take it any more I felt compelled to get up off of my butt and do something.”

Lieberman is running as a mainstream Democrat who supports impeaching Trump and implementing a public option to allow Americans to buy into a government-run health care plan. This proposal was almost passed during the debate over the Affordable Care Act, but was blocked by objections from then-Senator Joe Lieberman.

Lieberman’s relationship with his father will likely present some issues with liberal voters. In addition to blocking progressive goals like a public option, the senior Lieberman broke from the Democratic Party first by successfully running for re-election as an independent in 2006 and then by actively campaigning for John McCain during the 2008 presidential election.

Matt Lieberman recognized the challenge that comes along with having a high-profile politician as a father, telling JI, “for voters here in Georgia who like [Joe Lieberman], I hope they’ll give me a little bit of an extra hearing, and for the people who really don’t like him I would just remind them that technically speaking we are two different people and I think they’ll give me a hearing as well. Honestly, I think ultimately people are fair in that regard, even if they have no intention of supporting you, I think they will hear you out so I think people will do me that courtesy because it’s what engaged citizens ought to do so.”

Former Senator Lieberman’s reputation has left a number of progressive activists skeptical, however. Adam Green, the co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a progressive Democratic activist group, told JI, “Joe Lieberman is the corporate war-monger past of the Democratic Party. I don’t know anything about his son, but voters don’t love insider legacies and don’t love corporate greed and don’t love the Iraq War — so Joe Lieberman’s reputation likely won’t be helpful in this campaign.”

Cenk Uygur, the host of the Young Turks and a leading progressive activist, used even stronger language with JI. “The sins of the father should not be passed on to the son but neither should any degree of credibility,” he told JI. “Why are we having a conversation about this guy? Because of his last name and only because of his last name. I’m tired of these wannabe royals in America. His policy positions are milquetoast, which does run in the family. Apparently, we’ve gotten the Liebermans to a public option, give us a couple of more generations and we might finally get them to single payer.”

Regardless of initial skepticism, Matt Lieberman is already using his family background to amplify his progressive message. In his campaign announcement video, he tied the controversial 2000 Florida recount to Stacey Abrams’s defeat in the 2018 Georgia governor’s race, one that Abrams has claimed was stolen. Lieberman has declined to go that far, telling JI, “I think there were enough problems that were identified in the election to make a reasonable person not just worried but frustrated that it wasn’t run in a better way with fewer problems.”

On foreign policy, Lieberman expressed concern that Trump had “completely sold out” the Kurds, whom he described as a “reliable [and] heroic ally of the United States under difficult circumstances.” In his view, “we should be sticking by our allies.” Lieberman went on to “extend that thought to the issue of our alliance with Israel and one of the concerns it’s fair to have when it comes to this president is that no one really knows where he is going to be tomorrow on an issue and why he’s going to be there and that’s problematic.”

Lieberman struck far more equivocal notes about the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. “I think the Iran nuclear deal could have been better,” said the Senate hopeful. “I will say only as a lay person, only as a citizen, that the benefit of delaying Iran’s nuclear capability may well have been outweighed by the cost of freeing up enormous sums of money for Iran to wreak havoc.” Lieberman added “I think any future deal would need to look at what that experience has been and would look at what Iran has done with the funds that were opened up to it and take that into much more serious consideration given actual events that have transpired.”Before the election can happen, Lieberman still has to find out who his opponent will be. Republican Governor Brian Kemp, whom Lieberman parodied in his first campaign ad, will appoint Isakson’s replacement by end of the year. The special election will be a jungle primary in which candidates from all parties will compete against each other in November 2020 to serve the remaining two years of Isakson’s term. If no candidate receives a majority of the vote, a runoff between the top two finishers for the seat will be held in January 2021.

Seth Pinksy, the president of New York City’s Economic Development Corporation is leaving his post at the agency to join Scott Rechler’s real estate investment firm, RXR Realty, according to Crain’s New York. Pinsky will stay at the agency until August when Kyle Kimball, an executive director at the agency, will take over. During his tenure heading the Economic Development Corp., Pinsky helped arrange several major development projects for the city, including a nearly $300 million deal in recent months to convert the Kingsbridge Armory in the Bronx into the country’s largest ice rink facility. Pinsky also helped arrange the city’s $100 million acquisition of land in Coney Island in 2011 and draft plans to restore the area back to its carnival-era roots. Pinsky also spearheaded the $2 billion deal to create a joint NYC Tech campus for the Israeli Technion and Cornell universities on Roosevelt Island.

Pinsky is involved in the New York Jewish community and was honored by the Bnai Zion Foundation last September. In addition, both of Pinsky’s parents are heavily involved in their Wellington, Florida, Jewish community. According to Pinsky’s New York Times wedding profile, his mother is the assistant principal of the Arthur I. Meyer Jewish Academy in West Palm Beach, Florida, and his father is the leader of Temple Beth Torah in Wellington.