‘Climate of hate' for Jews has been ‘tolerated': Makovsky
(NewsNation) — The president and CEO of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America has condemned what he believes is a 'climate of hate' against Jews existing in the United States.
Michael Makovsky joined 'NewsNation Now' to discuss the killing of two Israeli Embassy workers in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday night.
'My gut reaction … there's a climate of hate, and that's been tolerated for far too long in this country,' Makovsky said.
Chicago Jewish leaders condemn Israeli Embassy staffers shooting
Makovsky criticized the Democratic Party and sections of the media for not denouncing a climate of antisemitism strongly enough.
'Obviously, the campuses have not just been tolerating, but the professors and the administrators seem to really [be] part of it,' he said.
'We all know that if these demonstrators, over the last year and a half, were wearing white hoods and railing against various minorities of color, there would have been a different reaction.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
IDF likely locates body of Mohammed Sinwar under European Hospital in Khan Yunis
The body of Mohammed Sinwar, former military leader of Hamas in Gaza, was reportedly located among the bodies of 10 other terrorists. The IDF located the body of a terrorist on Friday, believed to be that of Muhammad Sinwar, in an underground complex beneath the European Hospital near Khan Yunis in southern Gaza, Army Radio reported on Saturday The body was allegedly located in a tunnel, alongside about 10 other bodies of terrorists. Sinwar, former head of the Hamas military wing, was killed in an Israeli airstrike on May 13 in Khan Yunis. The operation, conducted jointly with the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), targeted senior Hamas figures operating in an underground command and control center. The military may have used, back in May, a bunker buster bomb in their attempted attack against Sinwar, defense sources told the Post. Following that initial attack, the IDF reportedly struck the area where Sinwar was allegedly located a second time, with the objective of preventing the evacuation of casualties, Israeli public broadcaster KAN reported. The IDF previously said the airstrike was carried out using extensive intelligence measures aimed at avoiding civilian harm. The targeted command center was located beneath the European Hospital in Khan Yunis, but hospital operations were not disrupted. Yonah Jeremy Bob contributed to this report.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Dawn, there is nothing funny about October 7
Dawn French has become the latest 'national treasure' to betray a complete lack of understanding of the conflict in the Middle East. Following hot off the heels of that other self-styled Professor of Palestine, Gary Lineker, the comedian insisted there was nothing 'complicated' or 'nuanced' about the ongoing war in Gaza. In a video posted on X, she put on a whiny childish voice to mock Israelis over invoking the October 7 attacks, in which 1,195 people were murdered. Credit: X/@Dawn_French 'Bottom line is no,' she insisted. Then, in a childish voice: 'Yeah but you know they did a bad thing to us. [Serious voice] Yeah but no. [Childish voice] But we want that land and there's a lot of history and urgh… [Serious voice] No. [Childish voice] Those people are not even people are they really? [Serious voice] No.' Like so much of French's output, she appeared under the illusion that she was being funny. In fact, it amounted to an obnoxious and offensive piece of useful idiocy, dressed up as performance art. Imagine being so warped that you would dismiss the rape and murder of Israeli women – the slaying of children and babies – as 'a bad thing'. The implication is that Israel does not have a right to defend itself. That it has acted disproportionately. But there is nothing remotely proportionate about recording a video about Gaza without even mentioning Hamas. Almost everyone and everything you can think of is funnier than Dawn French. What's truly hilarious is that these luvvies think they have enough expertise to emote on such issues. Like your average 'Free Palestine' ranting student marcher, her infantile outburst appeared to have largely been informed by things she's seen on social media. Anyone with any actual knowledge of the region understands that it is, in fact, an extremely complex issue with a very chequered history. Oh, and that it involves terrorists. Stunts like this do nothing to advance the debate. They simply debase it with ignorance and intolerance. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why Trump's threat to pull Columbia's accreditation is so ominous
I suspect that even casual followers of the news have heard about the ongoing battles between the government and higher education. First there's House Republicans' plan to increase taxes on university endowments, and now President Donald Trump's administration is threatening Columbia University's accreditation. As a college president, I know what these threats mean, but I've found myself having to explain them to folks who aren't higher ed nerds like me. Accreditation, I tell them, is what people Gen X or older might think of like a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, but for colleges and universities, accreditation is not just something that's nice for a university to have; it's something a university needs to have if it expects to offer any kind of financial aid to its students. The vast majority of college students receive some form of financial aid, so even the wealthiest of institutions understand that accreditation is important. That's why it's so ominous that the Trump administration, which claims that Columbia insufficiently handled expressions of antisemitism on its campus, contacted the university's accreditor alleging that the university is no longer eligible to be accredited. According to a statement from the Department of Education, Columbia 'failed to meaningfully protect Jewish students against severe and pervasive harassment on Columbia's campus and consequently denied these students' equal access to educational opportunities to which they are entitled under the law.' Columbia issued a statement that said it is 'deeply committed to combating antisemitism on our campus,' that it's 'aware of the concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights today,' and that it has 'addressed those concerns directly' with its accreditor. Prior to the first Trump administration, there were seven regional accreditors that were responsible for assuring that most colleges and universities operate at standards that signify what they do is done well and in order. Each accrediting agency developed a set of standards requiring that an institution, generally in five- to 10-year intervals, conduct a self-study to ensure that it continues to meet them. The institution must then submit a report to its accrediting agency. Then, a team of colleagues reviews the materials, and depending on the agency and its timelines, that team or another visits the campus to certify that what was submitted is accurate and that the institution is in good standing and keeps its 'seal of approval.' During the first Trump administration, the practice of regional accreditors as the primary determinants of accreditation was changed. All accreditors are viewed as national accreditors, including some with more of a niche focus like Christian colleges, that have the same power to certify that an institution is eligible for federal financial aid. This provides several options now for schools to be accredited, and more than 30 accreditors exist today. Accreditation is essentially about continuous improvement through constant assessment. Even the peer review process is designed not to simply determine if the standards are met, but if they are not, to identify weaknesses and provide feedback for improvement to meet those standards. While not meant to be a punitive process, the various agencies do have a series of steps in place to heighten an institution's urgency to address any deficiencies. There are generally levels of sanctions that an institution might receive, from a monitoring report to show progress made on deficiencies, to a public warning, which allows anyone to know what the institution must do to improve, and finally some kind of probationary period in which significant deficiencies must be corrected. While rare, accrediting agencies can cease to recognize an institution for failure to meet the standards set. It would take several years, though, for a school to get to the place where it loses accreditation — and even if accreditation is lost, most agencies have processes in place that allow schools to appeal that decision. There are multiple examples of schools successfully appealing a loss of accreditation and working their way back into good standing. When the Trump administration contacted the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, which accredits Columbia, it simply began a process to review the charges. Different commissions might handle these notices in different ways. Under the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, the accrediting agency I'm most familiar with, 'unsolicited information,' such as a letter from the federal government or a local news article covering a negative event, could begin such a review. But accreditation is a process, so even a letter from the administration would not create an immediate negative action as accreditors engage in a thoughtful and deliberate process to verify compliance with the standards. Again, the goal is continuous improvement, not punishment. If a school is out of compliance, the accreditor will take action. But this would occur only after working closely with the institution, giving it a chance to correct course on its own. Columbia, in the short term at least, doesn't appear to be at any risk of not being able to provide its students financial aid. This article was originally published on
