Antisemitism, Antizionism, Jihadism and the Reunited Germany. News by Fred Alan Medforth
On this week’s #NCFNewspeak, Amy Gallagher moderates the discussion between Senior Fellows Rafe Heydel-Mankoo and Dr. Philip Kiszely and Fellow Harrison Pitt as they discuss:
The devastating attacks in Germany are causing uncertainty everywhere. Jennifer H. from Cologne is also very worried.
That’s why she cancelled her daughter Hannah (9) being taken on a school trip. This caused trouble. The school even threatened to fine her!
A primary school in Longerich had planned a trip to the central mosque in the Ehrenfeld district of Cologne with the fourth grade for February 6, 2025. At that time, the attack in Munich had not yet happened.
‘Because of the incidents in Magdeburg and Aschaffenburg, I told our school management that I was very worried about sending my child on an excursion,’ explained the 36-year-old mother in an interview with EXPRESS.de.
‘I was immediately threatened that my daughter would not be allowed to take part in any further excursions, including the final trip,’ says Jennifer H., describing the school’s reaction. The corresponding letter is available to EXPRESS.de.
‘Your child’s non-participation in the school event constitutes an offence against compulsory school attendance, which I would actually have to punish with a fine or penalty in accordance with your obligation under Section 41 (1) of the School Law for the State of North Rhine-Westphalia (SchulG). As an exception, I will refrain from doing so,’ the school’s letter states.
Hannah did not take part in the excursion to the mosque. ‘Instead, my daughter was at school that day and was taught in a different class,’ explains Jennifer H.
In addition, the letter states that it was mutually agreed that her daughter would be allowed to take part in excursions as well as the school trip, which is incorrect. She had never given her consent.
‘Rather, I said that I don’t know whether the situation in Germany will calm down or how I will feel in five months‘ time,’ adds the 36-year-old. She has since called in a lawyer.
https://www.express.de/koeln/koeln-mutter-meldet-tochter-von-moschee-ausflug-ab-schule-droht-963953
Judith Butler, a radical leftist academic who described Hamas as “progressive” and part of the Left, and who defended the atrocities of Oct 7 by the Islamic terrorist group, was one of the top signatories to a petition by a group of anti-Israel activists, calling themselves the ‘ In Our Name Campaign’ claiming that they are “Jews” opposed to “ethnic cleansing”.
By that they don’t mean they are by any means opposed to Oct 7, only to Trump’s plan to resettle the terrorist population of Gaza to prevent them from continuing to kill Jews and every other non-Muslim non-Arab group.
Butler’s name appears alongside a handful of celebrities Joaquin Pheonix, Boots Riley (who is not Jewish) and Wallace Shawn who recently suggested that Hitler had more “decency” than the Jewish State, along with career anti-Israel activists like Sharon Brous, a political ally of Kamala Harris, and Jill Jacobs of T’ruah.
The media and the JTA dishonestly described this as a group of “rabbis”, celebrities and artists.
None of them ever mentioned Judith Butler’s very public pro-Hamas views.
“Hamas and Hezbollah are social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left”, Judith Butler argued.
Here's Judith Butler describing Hamas as a progressive group pic.twitter.com/xjBhvxU2Ol
— Daniel Greenfield – "Hang Together or Separately" (@Sultanknish) February 14, 2025
After Oct 7, Butler doubled down on her defense of Islamic terrorism against Jews, men, women and children.
“We can have different views about Hamas as a political party; we can have different views about, um, ah, armed resistance, but I think it is more honest and historically correct to say that the uprising of October 7th was an act of armed resistance. It is not a terrorist attack and it’s not an antisemitic attack.”
“You can be for or against armed resistance, you can be for or against Hamas. But let us at least call it armed resistance,”
“This was an uprising that comes out, that comes from, a state of subjugation and against a violent state apparatus. OK. Let us be clear. You can be for or against armed resistance, you can be for or against Hamas. But let us at least call it armed resistance, and then we can have a debate about whether we think it’s right or whether they did the right thing, whether a different strategy.”
No media outlet has yet reported on Butler’s appearance as one of the leading signatories on this pro-terrorist ad which was also backed by antisemitic groups and pro-terrorist groups.
The JTA’s failure to report on the truth about the ad is another reason why you should encourage your local Jewish paper to drop content from the anti-Israel propaganda wire service.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/hamas-supporter-appears-in-nyt-ad-by-jews-opposing-trump-gaza-plan/
NCF Senior Fellow Rafe Heydel-Mankoo discusses new polling showing a shocking decline in levels of pride in Britain amongst the young. Half of British youth believe Britain to be racist – and only 11% are willing to fight for the country.
After the abrupt end of the coalition negotiations in Austria, representatives of the Freedom Party (FPÖ) have accused foreign powers of playing a part in the breakdown.
The talks between the right-wing FPÖ and the Conservative Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) had abruptly collapsed after four weeks on February 12.
That came as the two parties seemingly could not agree on the division of government ministries, primarily regarding the interior ministry and the finance ministry.
In a TV interview on February 13, FPÖ general secretary Christian Hafenecker claimed that foreign interference had contributed to unwillingness of the ÖVP to form a coalition.
Hafenecker said it was apparent that ÖVP leader Christian Stocker initially wanted the right-wing government to work but “was not allowed to”.
Hafenecker blamed the European People’s Party (EPP) faction in the European Parliament for interfering with the inner matters of Austrian politics. “The German election is looming on the horizon,” Hafenecker continued.
Germans will elect a new goverment on February 23.
Brussels Signal asked the FPÖ for a clarification on whether it had proof of foreign interference and what institutions had exerted the most pressure but had not has a reply at the time of writing.
Suspicions that international forces had sabotaged the negotiations have already been doing the rounds since Stocker’s February 12 statement on why the ÖVP had decided to leave the negotiating table.
He insinuated he had received information from abroad that the FPÖ-led interior ministry – previously under the ÖVP – might threaten to undermine co-operation with international security agencies.
That could endanger Austrians as foreign services might no longer inform Austrian police about impending terror attacks, he seemed to suggest.
Stocker referred to a planned attack on a Taylor Swift concert in Vienna in autumn of 2024 about which the Austrian security forces had been tipped off from abroad.
“We want to care for our international relations because they are essential for the security of this country,” Stocker said.
Some commentators have taken his statements as a sign of foreign interference. Ralph Schoellhammer, a political pundit, called the revelation that international security agencies might stop informing Austria about impending attacks “a threat, nothing else”.
In a statement on February 14, FPÖ leader Herbert Kickl accused the ÖVP of only negotiating with the FPÖ for appearance sake and called the party’s negotiation techniques “absurd”.
He alleged that the Conservatives had already started “secret” negotiations with the Social Democrats and other parties on forming a coalition.
Previously, talks between ÖVP, the Social Democratic Party and Liberal Neos party had collapsed in early January after lengthy negotiations.
Pia Bernstein, 27, has received death and rape threats and has been a victim of a social media hate campaign on her German university campus, according to a BILD interview with the Jewish student published on Friday.
During a discussion on antisemitism at her university, Goethe University in Frankfurt, she alleged she was pushed against the wall of her lecture hall – in an attack which left her shoulder injured.
The young student also said she received messages from anonymous individuals threatening to behead and or rape her.
“When I leave the lecture hall, I am always stalked. I am also filmed. Everything to intimidate me,” she told the German paper.
Bernstein’s photograph has been shared on social media, according to screenshots shared by the German newspaper. In one such image, the text “This person thinks it’s perfectly fine to kill Palestinian babies because their grandparents survived the Holocaust. What do we think?” was edited above her head.
Bernstein condemned the post as “sick” asserting that she had Palestinian friends.
In one of the many hateful messages shared by Bernstein, an anonymously sent message read “Inshallah, you will be shot…You should die…Your whole f***ing Israel…”
The Jewish student alleged, based on her own investigations, that those behind the social media hate campaign are the same behind the pro-Palestinian demonstrations being carried out on campus – and many had become known to the police.
In response to the threats and harassment, Bernstein told BILD she filed over 60 police complaints which are still being investigated. Despite her involvement with authorities, she claimed that only a fine of €300 was issued against her harassers and the arrest of one man who threatened her with a gun on a video call.
Bernstein’s lawyer Jürgen Illing said, “It is a threatening situation that shapes her daily life.”
Goethe University, like many universities, has seen an increase in pro-Palestinian demonstrations since October 7 2023, when Hamas invaded southern Israel and murdered some 1200 people.
Last month, the university canceled the talk “Talking about (the Silencing of) Palestine. On its Epistemological and Political Challenges” – alleging the organizers had failed to properly identify themselves and engage with the university.
The university claimed that while the organizers advertised the event from the Autumn term of 2024, they remained anonymous and failed to contact the university about a room reservation until hours before the campus was due to suspend for winter break.
Read more:
One of the high dignitaries of the Islamic State, a French national, has been held prisoner by the Kurds in northern Syria since 2018. Believing his life to be in danger, he has asked to be repatriated to France, which has created controversy: it was in fact through him that the French learned of Daesh’s involvement in two terrorist attacks on French soil.
The man was born Adrien Guihal on the French civil register, but for the Islamic State, he goes by the name Abu Oussama al-Faransi. Aged 40, he converted to radical Islam in 2002. In 2008, he took part in an attempted terrorist attack on the headquarters of the French intelligence service, foiled by the French authorities, earning him a prison sentence. Released in 2012, he then worked in a car garage reputed to be a haunt of jihadists. He travelled to Syria in 2015. Three years later, he was captured by Kurdish forces in Raqqa, then the short-lived capital of the Islamic State. He has since been imprisoned in northeastern Syria.
His mother is behind his request for repatriation. She believes that his safety is no longer assured and that he is in danger there. The request has been submitted to the French authorities several times since December 2022. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Administrative Court of Paris have already opposed it. This time, Guihal’s mother intends to appeal to the Administrative Court of Appeal of Paris. On Wednesday, February 12th, Étienne Mangeot, the terrorist’s lawyer, filed the case with the court, aiming to force France to repatriate him. Two other families have joined the appeal.
Other French nationals fighting for the Islamic State are in the same situation. According to Mangeot, 65 French nationals are being held with Guihal in Derik prison, which is in the hands of Kurdish forces, in extremely difficult conditions that “place them in real danger of death.”
But Adrien Guihal is not just another Islamist. “He is undoubtedly one of the highest-ranking living dignitaries of the Islamic State,” admits Mangeot. Since his departure for Syria in 2015, Guihal has been the subject of an international arrest warrant. There, he worked in the communications department of the Islamic State. In 2016, the day after the attack in Nice, it was his voice that the French heard in the audio recording, claiming responsibility for the terrorist attack that left 86 people dead on the 14th of July, France’s national holiday. A month earlier, he also claimed responsibility for the murder of a police couple in Magnanville, a suburb of Paris, who were savagely stabbed to death in front of their three-year-old boy.
For the lawyer, it would be more “reassuring” today to know that Guihal is in prison in France and will be tried there, rather than potentially “on the loose” and being picked up by one or other of the Islamist groups still active in Syria. But this point of view is not shared by the French Foreign Ministry, which believes that, since the fall of the IS regime, people accused of complicity with the Islamic State should be tried locally. Mangeot would like the French courts to “have the last word,” and emphasises that Guihal and his accomplices are currently being held outside any legal framework, with no reaction from France: “I find that very unfortunate and a bit serious for the democracy that we are,” he told the press.
Overall, the majority of French people say they are against French jihadists returning to French soil. Imam Chalghoumi, known for his moderate stance, addressed the Minister of Justice and the Minister of the Interior on X to ask them not to give in:
No to the return of terrorists to France! Adrien Guihal, one of the highest-ranking French Daesh dignitaries, whose voice claimed responsibility for the Nice and Magnanville attacks, is demanding his repatriation. He is an absolute danger to our security! Radicalism is already a threat on our soil. Sending him back to prison here is to offer an opportunity for others to recruit him. This is a terrorist strategy that we must firmly reject! I call on our politicians to categorically oppose this return.
Between 2022 and 2023, France only repatriated women and children, before ceasing all operations of this kind, provoking several international condemnations, including that of the European Court of Human Rights in 2022.
The driver behind the car-ramming attack in Munich that left more than 30 people injured appears to have had an “Islamist motivation” authorities said Friday.
They qualified the observation by claiming there’s no evidence the suspect – named locally as 24-year-old Farhad N – was involved with any radical network, rather he appeared to be a lone terror operative.
As Breitbart News reported, the 24-year-old Afghan, who arrived in Germany as an asylum-seeker in 2016 and lived in Munich, was arrested after sending his Mini Cooper careering into the back of a labor union demonstration in the Bavarian city on Thursday.
Farhad N previously had his asylum application rejected but his deportation was suspended.
Police officers pulled him out of the car after firing a shot at the vehicle, which didn’t hit him, and arrested him.
AP reports prosecutor Gabriele Tilmann said the suspect cried “Allahu Akbar,” or “God is great,” to police and then prayed after his arrest — which prompted a department that investigates extremism and terror to take on the case immediately.
In questioning, the perpetrator admitted deliberately driving into the demonstration and “gave an explanation that I would summarize as religious motivation,” Tilmann said.
The AP report notes no further details were offered, but she added: “According to all we know at the moment, I would venture to speak of an Islamist motivation.” However, there were no indications the suspect was in any Islamic extremist organization, she added.
Farhad N posted content with religious references — such as “Allah, protect us always” — on social media, where he described himself as a bodybuilder and fitness model, Tilmann said.
The deputy head of Bavaria’s state criminal police office, Guido Limmer, said investigators found a chat, apparently with relatives, in which the suspect wrote “perhaps I won’t be there anymore tomorrow,” but so far they have found nothing that points to concrete preparations for the attack or anyone else being involved.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz responded harshly and with stern words after the incident, the BBC reports.
“This perpetrator cannot hope for any leniency. He must be punished and he must leave the country,” Scholz told reporters.
The incident came just hours before world leaders including U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky among many others are due to arrive in the city for a major international conference, the Munich Security Conference.
On February 10, 2025, Pope Francis wrote a letter to the bishops of the United States expressing strong criticism of the Trump administration’s deportation policies and directly challenging Vice President J.D. Vance’s theological justification for these actions. However, Pope Francis remained relatively silent during the last administration to President Biden’s clear and repeated advocacy for abortion, gender ideology and other policies that directly and egregiously contradict Catholic teaching.
Catholic doctrine upholds the dignity of every human being, including migrants, but it also unequivocally opposes abortion and the redefinition of marriage and gender. When Pope Francis chooses to intervene forcefully on matters of prudential judgment (such as immigration enforcement), but he fails to take a firm stance against a leader who openly promoted grave moral evils contrary to natural and divine law (such as President Biden’s abortion policies), it demonstrates what appears to be a selective and politically motivated concern rather than being doctrinally consistent.
Furthermore, the Catholic Church recognizes the legitimacy of sovereign nations enforcing just immigration laws. While the Church calls for humane treatment of migrants, it does not demand open borders or the abolition of deportation policies. For the Pope to strongly rebuke a policy that falls within the bounds of Catholic social teaching while remaining largely silent on a politician who openly promoted intrinsic moral evils is greatly disturbing.
There has long been a concern about the Church’s financial ties — particularly with globalist organizations — as well as concern about government funding and wealthy donors who have a vested interest in certain political outcomes. Especially in the case of immigration, there is a large financial element at play. The Catholic Church in the United States receives significant government funding to assist migrants and refugees through Catholic Charities and other organizations. Stronger immigration enforcement means less funding for these programs which is undoubtedly a large factor in the Vatican’s stance.
On the other hand, abortion and gender ideology do not offer the same direct financial incentives for the Church to oppose them aggressively. While Catholic doctrine condemns these practices unequivocally, to speak out about them risks alienating powerful political allies and financial supporters. This would seem to explain why Pope Francis remained relatively quiet on President Biden’s policies while vocally opposing President Trump and Vice President Vance on immigration issues and policy. Pope Francis’s reluctance to address grave moral issues raises legitimate concerns about whether financial and political interests outweigh doctrinal fidelity on the part of the Vatican.
There has also been much outcry on the part of the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) who are deeply involved in refugee advocacy. This, however, must be understood in the context of the Jesuit order’s historical and political tendencies – especially their connection to liberation theology and their role in political movements around the world.
Liberation theology gained prominence in the 20th century, particularly in Latin America. Many Jesuits have historically aligned themselves with this movement, often advocating for radical social change and even supporting leftist revolutionaries. This has sometimes led to their direct involvement in political uprisings, particularly in Latin American countries where they have backed socialist movements and criticized conservative governments.
In El Salvador, during the civil war, Jesuits were deeply involved in leftist revolutionary movements. In Nicaragua, Jesuits openly supported the Sandinista regime, a socialist government that suppressed opposition, including Catholic leaders who opposed their policies. In Venezuela, Jesuits have been vocal critics of conservative leaders while showing leniency toward socialist governments.
The Jesuit Refugee Service, being part of this larger ideological framework, naturally opposed immigration restrictions, particularly those imposed by nationalist or conservative governments. Their concern is not just about humanitarian aid – it is about their long-term political and ideological vision, which includes reshaping global power structures in favor of their version of “social justice.”
By keeping immigration channels open, the Jesuits increase their influence over displaced populations, often using their networks to promote their political and theological agenda. This is why they strongly oppose President Trump’s policies but do not apply the same level of scrutiny to leftist leaders who cause the very refugee crises they claim to care about.
The Jesuits’ opposition to President Trump’s policies is not likely primarily about helping refugees – it is much more likely that it is part of their broader historical pattern of political activism. Their history of supporting revolutionary movements, undermining conservative governments and aligning with globalist causes makes their outrage over President Trump’s immigration policies undoubtedly mostly about power and ideological control.
Francis has repeatedly aligned himself with globalist elites, including the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, who push for mass migration, climate policies that harm the working class and economic controls that weaken national sovereignty. His stance on immigration aligns with these globalist objectives. This stance by Pope Francis represents a betrayal of the Church’s independence and its traditional role as a moral guide rather than a political enforcer of leftist policies.
As I discussed earlier, the Jesuits have historically sought to destabilize conservative governments and promote socialist policies under the guise of Catholic social teaching. Francis himself, as the first Jesuit Pope, has shown sympathy toward this ideology. His opposition to President Trump’s immigration policies is part of a broader effort to undermine national identity, weaken conservative leadership and advance a globalist vision.
Catholic doctrine teaches that immigration must be just, orderly, and it must prioritize the common good. Pope Pius XII, Pope Leo XIII, and even Pope Benedict XVI all emphasized the right of nations to control their borders while still practicing charity toward migrants. President Trump’s policies, while strict, do not violate Catholic teaching because they aim to protect the common good – which includes protecting families from crime, ensuring economic stability and maintaining cultural cohesion.
While Pope Francis criticizes President Trump and Vice President Vance for wanting to secure the U.S. border, the Vatican itself is a walled city-state with one of the strictest immigration policies in the world. The Swiss Guard does not allow open migration into the Vatican, and yet the Pope expects the U.S. to absorb unlimited numbers of illegal migrants. This hypocrisy is confusing and frustrating to faithful Catholics.
Pope Francis is politicizing Catholic teaching in a way that undermines the moral authority of the Church and aligns it with secular, leftist and globalist agendas. He is prioritizing mass migration and global governance over defending non-negotiable Catholic moral teachings like the sanctity of life, the traditional family and national sovereignty. His selective interventions against President Trump and Vice President Vance – while remaining silent on President Biden’s promotion of abortion and gender ideology – make it clear that his priorities are political, not doctrinal.
In summary, Pope Francis was noticeably silent about President Biden’s open support of abortion, gender ideology and same-sex marriage, all of which are grave intrinsic evils in Catholic teaching. However, when it comes to President Trump and Vice President Vance enforcing lawful immigration policies which are not intrinsically evil, the Pope suddenly feels the need to intervene. This selective outrage makes it clear that he is more concerned with globalist political goals than with upholding Church doctrine.
The Church does not teach open borders or unlimited immigration. In fact, Catholic social teaching supports the right of nations to control their borders in a just and orderly manner. St. Thomas Aquinas and other Church theologians have emphasized the importance of prudence and the common good in determining how a nation should handle immigration. Vice President Vance’s invocation of ordo amoris (the order of love) is much more aligned with Catholic tradition than Pope Francis’s globalist interpretation of charity.
Pope Francis’s letter opposing U.S. immigration policies disregards the nation’s sovereign right to secure its borders, a principle supported by Catholic teaching on the common good. While the Church calls for compassion toward migrants, it does not mandate open borders or unrestricted immigration. Pope Francis’s objection to these policies reflects a political agenda rather than a doctrinal stance, undermining the legitimate authority of the U.S. to enforce its own laws in pursuit of order and national stability.
Bishop Joseph E. Strickland
Bishop Emeritus
In a controversial decision that has sent shockwaves through international baseball, organizers have excluded Israel’s Under-19 national team from defending their European Championship title, citing concerns over potential political unrest.
The defending champions, who clinched victory two years ago, were set to compete in Stuttgart’s prestigious Palomino tournament this April. However, tournament chairman Andre Fink informed the Israel Baseball Association that their participation would no longer be possible, pointing to what he termed “the current political situation.”
In his official communication to Israeli officials, Fink explicitly drew parallels to recent incidents involving Israeli sports teams abroad, particularly referencing the disturbances faced by Maccabi Tel Aviv‘s supporters in Amsterdam. While acknowledging there were “no issues on the field,” Fink expressed significant concerns about potential security threats from “problematic elements” outside the venue.
Dr. Jordy Alter, president of the Israel Baseball Association, condemned the decision in strong terms. “This exclusion fundamentally contradicts the principles of international sport,” he stated. “Our academy has consistently demonstrated the highest standards of sportsmanship and mutual respect. To bar young athletes from competition based on hypothetical security scenarios sets a dangerous precedent.”
The timing is particularly troubling as Israel’s youth baseball program has been gaining momentum internationally, with their 2022 European Championship victory marking a high point in the sport’s development within the country. The team has become known for its competitive spirit and technical proficiency, making the exclusion especially difficult for the young athletes who have trained extensively for this tournament.
In a formal statement, the Israel Baseball Association warned that this decision could have far-reaching implications for Israeli participation in international sports more broadly. “This creates a troubling precedent that could affect not just baseball, but all Israeli sports teams competing abroad,” the statement noted. “We categorically reject the notion that Israeli teams cannot safely participate in international events.”
The association has called for solidarity from the international baseball community, emphasizing that such exclusions threaten the fundamental principles of sporting inclusivity. They have maintained their commitment to providing Israeli athletes with equal opportunities to compete on the global stage, despite this setback.
As of now, no alternative arrangements have been announced for the Israeli team’s competitive schedule this spring.
