Middle East and Terrorism

Thursday, April 17, 2025

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion – alive and well on Palestinian Authority TV - Nan Jacques Zilberdik

by Nan Jacques Zilberdik

PA TV disseminates Jewish conspiracy libels

"Arabs, Muslims and Christians must re-examine" The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to know Israel's "traps and unannounced goals"
The Jews have always tried to rule the world: "British and French colonialism was just Zionist colonialism"
"Zionist enterprise" wants to rule the entire Muslim world
Israel aims to expand to the entire Arab world

Official Palestinian Authority TV is the mouthpiece of the PA, and the PA uses it to transmit libels and lies about Israel. One such libel claims that Israel's fight against Hamas is just a symptom of an Israeli plot to rule the entire Muslim world:

Speaker at anti-Israeli demonstration in Algiers: "The goal of the Zionist enterprise is not just to eliminate the central cause, which is the Palestinian cause. Its goal is to harm the [Arab] nation, dismantle it, and tear it apart, and to establish the [Zionist] entity state (i.e., Israel) on the land of Islam, on the land of Palestine, and on all the Muslim lands."

[Official PA TV, April 6, 2025]

The PA has repeated this libel for decades as Palestinian Media Watch has exposed, claiming that Israel harbors colonialist aspirations and dreams of ruling the entire Arab world:

Political science lecturer Hareth Halalmeh: "Israel has an expansionist outlook. This expansionist outlook does not only include Palestine, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, but encompasses the entire Arab and Islamic entity… The Arabs are now convinced that we are facing an imperialistic, expanding, occupying, settler state that does not accept a Palestinian partner, nor an Arab partner, but rather only thinks in the language of violence and power. The Arabs are now fully convinced that if this danger will not be nipped in the bud, this danger will reach every Arab state."
[Official PA TV, Capital of Capitals, March 6, 2025]

One speaker broadcast by official PA TV claimed that "traditional colonialism" was "just Zionist colonialism":

Political science lecturer Dr. Ibrahim Al-Rifa'i: "Was traditional colonialism just French and British?"
Official PA TV host: "Or Italian?"
Ibrahim Al-Rifa'i: "It was actually Zionist colonialism... They [the Jews] think that the entire world that is outside the circle of Zionism are goyim (i.e., non-Jews) and that Zionist globalization should rule, and they have been waging a world war ever since the time before traditional colonialism. Traditional colonialism was completely Zionist. This colonialism with its various names – British, English, French – was just Zionist colonialism."
[Official PA TV, Capital of Capitals – Tunis, Feb. 12, 2025]

A Lebanese Shari'ah Judge who was given a platform on PA TV packaged this in the well-known antisemitic libel that "Jews seek world dominion" and recommended that "Arabs, Muslims, and even Christians" should "re-examine" The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which was exposed as a Russian antisemitic forgery over a century ago, for proof that "any decision made by the Zionist enemy contains traps and unannounced goals":

Lebanese Shari'ah Judge Sheikh Khaldoun Oraymet: "We must understand, as Lebanese, Arabs, Muslims, and even Christians, that any decision made by the Zionist enemy (i.e., Israel) certainly contains traps and unannounced goals, which are necessarily not for the benefit of Lebanon [or] the Palestinian cause or the Arabs. For us to know for certain that this is their position, one must re-examine The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (i.e., antisemitic forgery), and examine - I'm not saying the Bible, but the Talmud that was written by the Jews' rabbis."
[Official PA TV, Capital of Capitals, March 18, 2025]

PA Chairman Abbas' advisor Al-Habbash has presented a different version of this libel, claiming that it is the US that seeks dominion over the Arab world, using Israel as "a pawn state" to reach its "colonialist goals":

PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas' Advisor on Religious Affairs and Islamic Relations Mahmoud Al-Habbash: "There is no strategic alliance in the true political sense between the US and Israel. What actually exists is American employment of Israel. Israel is nothing more than an American interest. It is nothing more than a pawn state or pawn entity whose goal is to serve the American and colonialist goals. The US is making sure to keep this entity and state so that it will serve its goals to keep the Arab region divided, backward, and conflict-ridden… The US is interested in continuing the situation (i.e., Israeli counter-terror operation against Hamas). It wants to pressure the Palestinian people, and to break the willpower of the Palestinian people and the Arab nation that is behind it."
[PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas' Advisor on Religious Affairs and Islamic Relations Mahmoud Al-Habbash, Facebook page, Dec. 13, 2023] 

Official PA TV has repeatedly served as a means for spreading the libel that Israel's goal is to expand beyond "Palestine." A Syrian commentator warned that Israel poses "a danger that will wash over the Arab and Islamic world":

Syrian commentator Husam Taleb: "Israel wants to expel [the residents from] the entire West Bank, so that not a single Palestinian will remain. Afterwards they will move on to the 1948 Arabs (i.e., Israeli Arabs)... Then the Golan Heights, they want to expel the [Druze] people of the Golan... This plan is being put on the table by the Israelis."
[Official PA TV, Capital of Capitals – Damascus, Jan. 26, 2025]

Syrian political commentator Husam Taleb: "The [Arab states'] abandonment of Palestine, the abandonment of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is like one who wraps the noose around his [own] neck… Today this Israeli barbarity, and the American support for this will not stop with occupied Palestine, and will not stop with the West Bank... the issue is that it will reach you – the Israeli crime and the Israeli plots… This is a danger that will wash over the Arab and Islamic world."
[Official PA TV, Capital of Capitals – Damascus, Sept. 1, 2024]

Nan Jacques Zilberdik

Source: https://palwatch.org/page/37094

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Trump is nearly undefeated at the Supreme Court - Ben Whedon

by Ben Whedon

While the top bench has yet to formally address the legal viability of nationwide injunctions in detail, it has handed the administration a number of wins on immigration cases, the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) access to documents, and the firing of federal employees.

Despite the Trump administration’s repeated lamentations over left-aligned federal court judges blocking its executive orders and efforts to shrink the bureaucracy, the Supreme Court has almost routinely allowed his orders to take effect and rebuked those lower court judges for exceeding their authority.

While the top bench has yet to formally address the matter of nationwide injunctions on its own, it has handed the administration a number of wins on a wide range of issues, including immigration cases; the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) access to documents; and the firing of federal employees.

Lower court judges attracted the ire of MAGA-aligned lawmakers and White House staffers amid a string of injunctions and prompted legislative efforts to rein in their authority. The House of Representatives last week passed the “No Rogue Rulings Act” in a 218-214 vote.

Congress has the authority to establish jurisdictional limits under Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which defines the types of "cases and controversies" for which federal courts have jurisdiction. In this case, the legislation would bar judges from issuing injunctions, save for an "order providing for injunctive relief, except in the case of such an order that is applicable only to limit the actions of a party to the case before such district court with respect to the party seeking injunctive relief from such district court."

In Supreme Court filings, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris noted that "District courts have issued more universal injunctions and TROs during February 2025 alone than through the first three years of the Biden Administration. That sharp rise in universal injunctions stops the Executive Branch from performing its constitutional functions before any courts fully examine the merits of those actions, and threatens to swamp this Court’s emergency docket."

The legislation is expected to face an uphill battle in the Senate, which has a different vision for addressing the issue. But with many of the most high-profile orders nullified, the push for reform may waver.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s deportation

Though widely reported as a loss for the administration, the Supreme Court’s recent 9-0 ruling on the matter of illegal alien Kilmar Abrego Garcia to his home country of El Salvador strongly rebuked the lower court judge who ordered his return to the U.S. and a stay from Chief Justice John Roberts has afforded the administration time to stave off a contempt of court finding.

Abrego Garcia was subject to a 2019 withholding order forbidding his deportation due to concerns the government of El Salvador would not protect him. He was nonetheless removed to his home country through what the administration called an “administrative error.” Washington has alleged he is a member of the MS-13 gang, which he denies. The U.S. District Court for Maryland ordered the government to “facilitate and effectuate” his return by April 7.

Much of the reporting on the case has been inaccurate or incomplete. In fact, the Supreme Court stayed the deadline and added that while the lower court could tell the Trump administration to “facilitate” his return, “[t]he intended scope of the term ‘effectuate’ in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority.”

For the time being, Abrego Garcia will remain in El Salvadoran custody as President Nayib Bukele has declined to release him. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, however, has demanded the U.S. provide documentation of its efforts to return Abrego Garcia. The U.S. government — including the Judicial Branch — has no authority to demand that the government of El Salvador return Garcia.

The Alien Enemies Act

Among the most high-profile immigration actions that Trump has taken since returning to office is his invocation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to speedily deport members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. That gang was declared a "terrorist organization" by President Trump on his first day in office.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a March 15 order to block deportations made under the law. But the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to overturn the stay. Widely unreported was the Supreme Court's finding that Boasberg’s Washington, D.C., court was an inappropriate venue for the case, given the aliens subject to removal were confined in Texas.

“Regardless of whether the detainees formally request release from confinement, because their claims for relief 'necessarily imply the invalidity’ of their confinement and removal under the AEA, their claims fall within the ‘core’ of the writ of habeas corpus and thus must be brought in habeas,” they wrote, confirming that the deportees had the right to challenge their removal.

But the reversal of Boasberg's order and the relocation of the case to Texas, a venue far more favorable to the administration, served as a rebuke of both the judicial injunction and the venue shopping practice that has seen opponents secure judicial stays from favorable judges with questionable jurisdiction.

Boasberg fired back on Wednesday with a determination that there was “probable cause” to find the administration in contempt of court, though it remains unclear how such a determination will move forward after the Supreme Court found his venue inappropriate.

Boasberg himself became the focus of ethical questions after Just The News reported that a Republican member of Congress and a Harvard professor called for a ban on special interest judicial junkets following Just the News revealing that Judge Boasberg attended a privately-funded conference with an anti-Trump organization last year.

Mass firing of federal workers allowed by SCOTUS

As part of DOGE’s efforts to dramatically shrink the size of the federal government, the administration fired thousands of probationary employees within the first few months. Judge William Alsup, however, found that myriad federal departments had unlawfully fired employees from the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, Treasury and Veterans Affairs, and ordered that they be reinstated.

A panel of the 9th Circuit, moreover, upheld Alsup’s ruling and the government filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court. The top bench immediately blocked the order and allowed the administration to remove the roughly 16,000 employees by placing them on administrative leave.

Labor board firings

Last week, Chief Justice John Roberts handed Trump a temporary win by permitting him to remove former National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox and former Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris amid legal challenges.

Roberts’s move overturned a federal appeals court decision that found Trump lacked the authority to fire members of adjudicatory boards. Both Wilcox and Harris were Biden appointees.

Both board members had until April 15 to respond to the administration’s arguments, though Roberts has yet to issue a permanent decision.

USAID funds

Trump met a notable defeat on the matter of freezing funds from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The court ruled 5-4 to require the administration to distribute billions in frozen funds, much to the shock of conservative justices. Roberts and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the court’s liberals in issuing the order.

"Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?” Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote in dissent. “The answer to that question should be an emphatic 'No,' but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.”

Lower courts

The administration has also secured wins at lower levels to advance its administrative goals. Last Friday, Judge Jeannette A. Vargas relaxed her own previous order to permit DOGE employee Ryan Wunderly to access sensitive payment data from the Treasury Department if he went through the same training that department employees do for handling such data.

Nineteen Democratic state attorneys general have sued to stop DOGE from accessing Treasury payment systems over privacy concerns. DOGE has thus far saved an estimated $150 billion, but is well shy of its $2 trillion goal. That case was far from the only legal challenge to DOGE’s access, however, and in February, U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer issued a similar block.

Reacting to that decision, Musk identified the need to review payment systems as ranking among the most vital for him to address government spending. "How on Earth are we supposed to stop fraud and waste of taxpayer money without looking at how money is spent? That’s literally impossible! Something super shady is going to protect scammers," Musk wrote at the time.

The matter could ultimately reach the Supreme Court, but for the time being, it appears DOGE will be able to secure access to Treasury Department payment data.

Ben Whedon

Source: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/thutrump-nearly-undefeated-supreme-court

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Witkoff In His Own Words - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

Is Witkoff breaking new ground or repeating Biden's errors?

Witkoff, whatever his flaws, is far more honest than his PR men on X or Capitol Hill, and has never denied that he was just implementing the policies of the Biden administration.
What new solutions has Witkoff come up with? The Obama ones. Negotiate with terrorists. Pretend they're reasonable. Give them what they want. Act confused when it doesn't work out.
Figuring out what the terrorists want and trying to give it to them were the signature diplomatic policies of the Carter, Clinton and Biden administrations. Those are the "old-school globalist solutions," which is why President Donald Trump is such a breath of fresh air and Witkoff isn't.
Whatever Witkoff's agendas are, he's in over his head, and he outsourced his negotiations to everyone from the Biden team to the Islamic terror state of Qatar, with whom he's done business and whose terrorist leaders he has repeatedly praised. Knowing nothing about the Middle East hasn't given him a fresh perspective: it just made him an easy dupe for everyone who does.
It's an honest admission. Witkoff's defenders, who pretend that he's a genius shaking up diplomacy by appeasing Islamic terrorist states, could at least try to be as honest as him.

What new solutions has Steve Witkoff come up with? The Obama ones. Negotiate with terrorists. Pretend they're reasonable. Give them what they want. Act confused when it doesn't work out. Pictured: Witkoff on the grounds of the White House on February 4, 2025, in Washington, DC. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Steve Witkoff, the real estate tycoon turned international negotiator, has become the subject of controversy with some conservatives attacking him and others rushing out to defend him.

"In a world left in chaos thanks to Joe Biden, Steve Witkoff is the diplomat America needs right now," US Senator Jim Banks claimed this month.

Tucker Carlson hailed Witkoff as "the most effective American diplomat in a generation."

But Witkoff, whatever his flaws, is far more honest than his PR men on X or Capitol Hill, and has never denied that he was just implementing the policies of the Biden administration.

In January, at Mar-a-Lago, Witkoff stated that "the Biden administration is the tip of the spear" in the Hamas negotiations. Biden has "got a solid team, and I appreciated that they're allowing us to be collaborative."

"I think Steve Witkoff has been a terrific partner in this," then Secretary of State Blinken praised him on MSNBC.

Much later, Witkoff told Carlson, "When I first got in and I was talking to Brett McGurk, who was the envoy on behalf of Biden, he was a smart guy."

"He said to me, 'This is where I want to get to, Steve.' And so when I went in there, I went in with the imprimatur of the president."

"Steve became a close partner of mine, I think it's safe to say a friend," McGurk told PBS.

Whose deal was it really?

Witkoff admitted to FOX News that he "had nothing to do with the mathematics behind the prisoner release and the hostage release". The deal's terms were set "months ago in the so-called May 27 protocol that was agreed to by Hamas, by the Israelis, and monitored by the United States under the Biden administration" and "our job was to speed up the process."

And where did the May 27, 2024 protocol come from?

On a May 31 call, an unnamed senior Biden administration official told reporters that the proposed deal was "nearly identical to Hamas's own proposals of only a few weeks ago".

Witkoff's achievement was taking a Biden administration proposal "nearly identical" to the Hamas demands and lending some muscle to the Biden team to push it through. That is why Biden officials like Blinken and McGurk praised Witkoff for enlisting Trump to bail them out.

There's plenty of reasons to be critical of Witkoff, but he has been honest about what he was doing, giving credit to the Biden team, and admitting that he was advancing their agenda.

The same cannot be said of his defenders.

In an April 4 op-ed, Banks claimed that Witkoff had stepped "into a leadership vacuum" and that "globalist critics continue to chirp from the sidelines, frustrated largely because Witkoff is shaking things up" and that problems "can't be solved with old-school globalist solutions."

Witkoff proposed a 10-15 year UN rebuilding program and allowing Hamas to stay on in Gaza. Rather than ending the war, the Biden ceasefire he worked for unwound into further war. As a result of the deal, the Trump administration sent another $134 million in aid to Gaza.

This isn't "shaking things up" and Witkoff's solutions are the same "old-school globalist solutions". When a man is being praised by Blinken and the entire Biden old guard, the last thing he can be accused of doing is shaking things up. And Witkoff doesn't claim that he is.

What new solutions has Witkoff come up with? The Obama ones. Negotiate with terrorists. Pretend they're reasonable. Give them what they want. Act confused when it doesn't work out.

According to Banks, "Witkoff's key to successful negotiation is straightforward, admitting that deals only work when they benefit all parties."

According to Carlson, this is "so different from the posture that the last couple of generations of diplomats have taken, which is like, here's what we want. Shut up and do it." When did Obama or Clinton ever talk like that to America's enemies?

Figuring out what the terrorists want and trying to give it to them were the signature diplomatic policies of the Carter, Clinton and Biden administrations. Those are the "old-school globalist solutions," which is why President Donald Trump is such a breath of fresh air and Witkoff isn't.

Witkoff's initial Iran proposals pick up where Obama's 2015 Iran nuclear deal left off.

After reports emerged that the Trump administration would let Iran keep a "civilian" nuclear program, Witkoff appeared to suggest that the goal was Obama's old capping enrichment gimmick.

"[T]hey do not need to enrich past 3.67%. In some circumstances, they're at 60%, in other circumstances 20%. That cannot be. You do not need to run — as they claim — a civil nuclear program where you're enriching past 3.67%."

Capping Iran's nuclear enrichment at 3.67% had been the objective of Obama's Iran deal.

Obama had falsely claimed that his deal would force Iran to "keep its level of uranium enrichment at 3.67% — significantly below the enrichment level needed to create a bomb." The 3.67% was an Obama bait-and-switch.

Fred Fleitz, vice chair of the America First Policy Institute, warned that 3.5% could go to 90% in only weeks:

"This was the enrichment level in Obama's disastrous JCPOA agreement. This was a huge mistake because due to the peculiarities of uranium enrichment, 3-5% enrichment is only a few weeks away from weapons grade. Given Iran's secret nuclear weapons research, Iran cannot be trusted to do ANY uranium enrichment."

Witkoff has since reversed course and stated that Iran must stop and eliminate enrichment.

But the 3.67% number was revealing of where Witkoff gets his ideas. The enrichment cap and the talk of verification on enrichment were xeroxed right from Obama, Biden and the European Union.

In 2023, McGurk, Witkoff's pal, had been dispatched by the Biden administration to offer Iran sanctions relief in exchange for freezing some of its nuclear enrichment.

It may not be a new idea, but Witkoff's defenders are the only ones who accuse him of having new ideas. The Obama and Biden pros recognize that Witkoff is following in their footsteps.

Whatever Witkoff's agendas are, he's in over his head, and he outsourced his negotiations to everyone from the Biden team to the Islamic terror state of Qatar, with whom he's done business and whose terrorist leaders he has repeatedly praised. Knowing nothing about the Middle East hasn't given him a fresh perspective: it just made him an easy dupe for everyone who does.

"I thought we had a deal — an acceptable deal. I even thought we had an approval from Hamas," Witkoff had told Fox News. "Maybe that's just me getting duped."

It's an honest admission. Witkoff's defenders, who pretend that he's a genius shaking up diplomacy by appeasing Islamic terrorist states, could at least try to be as honest as him.

Follow Daniel Greenfield on X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow and Executive Vice President of Programs at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. With deepest appreciation to the author for permitting Gatestone Institute to print this article.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21563/wikoff-in-his-own-words

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Hamas in financial crisis, unable to pay terrorists after Israel cuts Gaza aid - report - Jerusalem Post Staff

by Jerusalem Post Staff

Prior to the Israel-Hamas War, Hamas received $15 million monthly transfers from Qatar, as well as $500 million in funds it raised worldwide.

Hamas terrorists stand guard in Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip, February 22, 2025

(photo credit: BASHAR TALEB/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES)

Hamas faces a severe financial setback as it lacks cash to pay its members, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday, citing Arab intelligence officials.

Israel's discontinuing of humanitarian aid, which Hamas pilfered for monetary gains, and the IDF strikes targeting Hamas officials responsible for distributing funds have contributed to this trend, according to the officials.

Hamas also exploited the humanitarian aid to increase the flow of money, such as taxing merchants, collecting taxes, and using foreign cash to buy humanitarian aid, which was then sold in Gaza for a profit, according to Western, Israeli, and Arab officials, detailing the terror group's financial web.

The January ceasefire-hostage deal brought an increase of humanitarian aid, and thus funds, which ceased when Israel discontinued the aid entering Gaza in March.

The report noted that prior to the Israel-Hamas War, Hamas received $15 million monthly transfers from Qatar as well as $500 million in funds it raised worldwide, and specifically in Turkey.

Trucks containing humanitarian aid from Jordan and international communities transfers into the northern Gaza Strip, October 22, 2024 (credit: IDF SPOKESMAN’S UNIT)

According to the report, many government workers in Gaza have had their pay cut off, while Hamas terrorists have seen their salaries reduced.

Israel's humanitarian aid policy

On Wednesday, Defense Minister Israel Katz said the flow of humanitarian aid entering the Gaza Strip could restart soon.

However, Katz noted such a move would be achieved via private companies, in order to circumvent Hamas.

Yonah Jeremy Bob contributed to this report.

Jerusalem Post Staff

Source: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-850425

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The latest attempt to undermine Israel? Exploiting Palestinian Christians - Mitchell Bard

by Mitchell Bard

If Nicholas Kristof genuinely cared about the fate of Christians in the Middle East, then why hasn’t he reported from Saudi Arabia, where practicing the religion is illegal?

Palestinians scouts share the Holy Fire in the city of Ramallah, in the West Bank, as Orthodox Christians mark the Holy Saturday, a day ahead of the Easter holiday, April 15, 2023. Photo by Flash90.

Nicholas Kristof, a longtime member of The New York Times stable of inveterate Israel-bashers, has taken a new angle in his ongoing campaign: using the plight of Palestinian Christians to turn American Christians against the Jewish state. In a recent piece, the columnist paints a picture of Israeli oppression in Bethlehem while ignoring relevant context that doesn’t fit his narrative.

Kristof’s op-ed appeared as a new Pew survey shows that 72% of evangelicals view Israel favorably. Evangelicals are typically more informed about Israel than the average Christian, whose views tend to be more divided. Kristof’s portrayal of Palestinian Christians as victims of Israeli persecution is meant to turn American Christians against Israel.

While Christians are unwelcome in Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia and most have been driven out of their longtime homes in Lebanon, Christians have always been welcomed in Israel and are treated as equal citizens. Israel is the only Middle Eastern nation where the non-Arab Christian population has grown—from 34,000 in 1948 to more than 180,000 today. Moreover, Christians enjoy the same rights as Jews in Israel and manage their own personal affairs, such as marriage.

The total number of Christians in the Palestinian territories has remained stable since 1967; however, the proportion has dropped from nearly 10% in 1922 to closer to 1% of the population today. Some 50,000 Christians are under Palestinian Authority rule in the West Bank, where there are nearly 3 million Muslims. The Palestinian Authority is responsible for almost every aspect of their lives, including their protection.

Kristof doesn’t bother to ask why the Christians of Bethlehem are now a tiny, shrinking minority in what was once a Christian stronghold. In 1950, Christians made up 86% of Bethlehem’s population. Today, three-fourths of them live abroad; Muslims are the dominant majority. According to Maurice Hirsch and Tirza Shorr, “Christian families are leaving Bethlehem due to systemic socio-economic hardships and instability, discrimination and harassment (including of clergy) by Muslim Palestinians and the Islam-dominated Palestinian Authority.”

He also omits key events that illustrate why Christians feel unsafe in Palestinian areas. In 2002, nearly 200 armed Palestinians seized the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem during Israel’s Operation Defensive Shield, taking priests and nuns hostage. Churches have been desecrated. The Maronite Church was vandalized multiple times and suffered an arson attack in 2015 that forced its closure for three years. That same year, Muslim extremists threatened Christian celebrations, prompting the P.A. to limit Christmas festivities. On Christmas Day, Muslim Palestinians stoned the car of the Latin Patriarch en route to Bethlehem.

Unlike Christians who enjoy the freedom of speech and religion in Israel, beleaguered Palestinian Christians rarely speak out. One Protestant clergyman lamented: “Christians feel unprotected due to the failure of the P.A. police to intervene on their behalf in confrontations with Muslims.”

As David Raab observed, “Out of fear for their safety, Christian spokesmen aren’t happy to be identified by name when they complain about the Muslims’ treatment of them. … [O]ff the record they talk of harassment and terror tactics, mainly from the gangs of thugs who looted and plundered Christians and their property, under the protection of Palestinian security personnel.”

The P.A.’s actions are calculated. “Fatah regularly exerts heavy pressure on Christians not to report the acts of violence and vandalism from which they frequently suffer, as such publicity could damage the P.A.’s image as an actor capable of protecting the lives and property of the Christian minority under its rule. Even less does the P.A. want to be depicted as a radical entity that persecutes religious minorities,” noted Edy Cohen.

One Christian who went public is Samir Qumsiyeh, a journalist from Beit Sahur who told the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera in 2005 that Christians were being subjected to rape, kidnapping, extortion, and expropriation of land and property. Qumsiyeh compiled a list of 93 cases of anti-Christian violence between 2000 and 2004, and specifically mentioned the case of a 17-year-old girl from his town who members of Fatah raped. “Even though the family protested,” he said, “none of the four was ever arrested. Because of the shame, her family was forced to move to Jordan.” He added that “almost all 140 cases of expropriation of land in the last three years were committed by militant Islamic groups and members of the Palestinian police.”

A 2020 survey by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research found that 25% of Palestinian Christians had experienced religiously motivated violence and most felt unwelcome among Muslims. Additionally, 25% reported discrimination in job interviews, 30% encountered religiously based hatred, and a quarter said Muslims had urged them to convert to Islam.

Kristof’s piece highlights a Christian group in Bethlehem—the Tent of Nations—that advocates nonviolence. He fails to ask why Christians embrace peace, while Palestinians under the same pressures often resort to terrorism. Nor does he ask whether these Christians condemned the Hamas-led massacre of 1,200 people in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, protested incitement or recognized Israel as a Jewish state. Do their children study from the same P.A. textbooks with antisemitic content and maps replacing Israel with Palestine?

The views of the people Kristof interviewed might be understood by their need to survive in a hostile Muslim environment. As Adam Garfinkle related, “Because Arab Christians are somewhat marginalized in majority Islamic culture, they have often gone out of their way to act more Arab than the Arabs, and that has sometimes meant taking the lead in anti-Western and anti-Israel advocacy.”

Kristof exemplifies what Cohen described as the “thunderous silence of the Western (and Israeli) media in the face of the Christian minority’s ongoing disappearance from the P.A. and Islamic lands in general—in striking contrast to the growth, prosperity and increasing integration of the Christian community in Israel proper.”

If Kristof genuinely cared about the fate of Christians in the Middle East, then why hasn’t he reported from Saudi Arabia, where Christianity is illegal? Why not write about Lebanon, Egypt or Iran, where Christians have long faced persecution? Shouldn’t American Christians be more outraged by the mistreatment and disappearance of Christians in those countries?

Instead, he focuses exclusively on Israel, the only country in the region where Christianity thrives. This is the double standard and demonization of Israel typical of antisemites.

Mitchell Bard is a foreign-policy analyst and an authority on U.S.-Israel relations who has written and edited 22 books, including The Arab Lobby, Death to the Infidels: Radical Islam’s War Against the Jews and After Anatevka: Tevye in Palestine.

Source: https://www.jns.org/the-latest-attempt-to-undermine-israel-exploiting-palestinian-christians/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Judge spurs grassroots backlash by upholding ban on 'demeaning' XX symbol at girls' games - Greg Piper

by Greg Piper

Like Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain that triggered political reform, ruling against silent protest at girls' games energizes gender-critical movement. Dissenter thinks they bet wrong on First Amendment cases, though.

The routine practice of governments taking private property for whatever purpose they see fit, even economic redevelopment, became a losing political issue after the Supreme Court upheld a sweeping view of eminent domain against a divorced mom with a "Little Pink House," as the dramatized version of Susette Kelo's legal battle called her doomed abode.

By letting a New Hampshire school district ban parents from wearing "XX" wristbands at their daughters' soccer games to silently protest male participation, calling the female symbol a "demeaning and harassing assertion" in that context, U.S. District Judge Steven McAuliffe may have doomed the political viability of gender identity-based athletics policies.

The President George W. Bush nominee's denial of a preliminary injunction against Bow School District's XX ban this week, after mostly rejecting an emergency temporary restraining order last fall, sparked outrage among high-profile activists for sex-based distinctions including swimmer Riley Gaines, but also criticism from within the movement about the legal strategy.

The ruling counters newfound White House support for girls challenging so-called transgender participation policies, with the Trump administration suing Maine for letting males in girls' sports.

It's also at odds with the U.K. Supreme Court's unanimous ruling that its Equality Act defines "woman" and "sex" by biology, not gender identity. The National Health Service said it's considering the ruling as it updates its guidance on "same-sex wards," which currently says transgender people "should be accommodated according to their presentation."

"Mass produce these pink XX wristbands under your own name/brand" for "girl dads" to sport, an X user responded to Gaines, who rose to prominence by protesting University of Pennsylvania male swimmer Lia Thomas, who identifies as a woman, taking her trophy.

"Let’s all sport our XX gear and stand with those working to protect women’s sports," Paula Scanlan, another Penn swimmer who protested Thomas's participation on the women's team wrote on X.

XX-XY Athletics founder Jennifer Sey, a former Olympic gymnast and Levi's brand president, said her gender-critical sports apparel company made a hat "in honor of the New Hampshire dads standing up for their daughters" and changed its logo to hot pink to match the wristbands. Judge McAuliffe "didn't say squat about hats," the company posted on X.

Other social media users suggested more creative silent protests.

Sounds like it is time for face painting pic.twitter.com/Wx7bQ6sCv1
— John P Gault (@MAGAextremist3) April 15, 2025

'We contest every word of the transgender gospel'

"Our side loses a lot of cases we should win" because the movement uses First Amendment lawyers, who "love defending harmful speech" and won't challenge the other side's argument that "sex-realist language hurts kids," New York Assistant Attorney General for Consumer Fraud Glenna Goldis wrote in her personal capacity in an X thread.

"We should be arguing – Gender is meaningless," the "lefty lesbian lawyer" Goldis said. "Every gender-respecting precedent is wrong" and legal discovery "will show the other side is lying about harms. We contest every word of the transgender gospel."

Coming out under her own name last fall to crusade against the medicalization of youth gender confusion, which she says should be illegal, Goldis noted she was an outlier by predicting that not only was the New Hampshire case not a "slam dunk" but the parents would lose at the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals if it got there.

The 1st Circuit ruled last summer that Middleborough Public School in Massachusetts could ban student Liam Morrison from wearing shirts that read "only two genders" and even "censored genders" to protest the school's LGBTQ activism.

It narrowly construed the 1969 Tinker precedent on student speech to exclude expression that "assertedly demeans characteristics of personal identity," even if done "passively, silently, and without mentioning any specific students."

McAuliffe called that ruling "both relevant and instructive" to "adult invitees to high school soccer matches" because the 1st Circuit "fully describes the kind of demeaning, bullying message that can be constitutionally regulated in a public school setting."

We made this hat in honor of the New Hampshire dads standing up for their daughters.

Changed our logo to hot pink, like their wrist bands! https://t.co/HGA50xfRbn pic.twitter.com/3Awqp2YIm7
— Jennifer Sey (@JenniferSey) April 16, 2025

The ruling counters newfound White House support for girls challenging so-called transgender participation policies, with the Trump administration suing Maine for letting males in girls' sports.

"Let’s all sport our XX gear and stand with those working to protect women’s sports," Paula Scanlan, another Penn swimmer who protested Thomas's participation on the women's team wrote on X.

Other social media users suggested more creative silent protests.

'We contest every word of the transgender gospel'

Morrison appealed to the Supreme Court, supported by Republican attorneys general, conservative and pro-life groups and a Colorado student who was banned from wearing a backpack with the Gadsden flag – a supposed "slave trade" symbol – until his governor intervened. SCOTUS will decide on Thursday whether to take his case.

Asked whether the First Amendment strategy is failing, the parents' lawyers at the Institute for Free Speech told Just the News the 1st Circuit decision is not "free-speech friendly" but noted it keeps getting distributed for conference at SCOTUS.

McAuliffe's opinion, however, "goes even further, applying LM to adults in a limited public forum, not just students in the classroom," senior attorney Del Kolde wrote in an email. "We think that makes this decision an outlier, not just nationally, but also in the First Circuit."

He didn't say whether IFS would appeal, just that it has 30 days to do so. IFS immediately notified the court it didn't plan to "supplement the evidentiary record or submit supplemental briefing" ahead of McAuliffe's ruling on their permanent injunction request.

'An assertion of inauthenticity, falsity and nonexistence'

Both George W. Bush nominees with "senior status," McAuliffe's ruling exhibits the confusion of 2nd Circuit Judge Richard Wesley in a recent oral argument over Vermont banning a Christian school from athletics for its refusal to play a girls' team with a male.

Wesley had trouble keeping sex and gender identity straight – the core of the case – and disputed how a Christian school could object to playing a gender-confused male on the basis of sex without also discriminating based on gender identity.

McAuliffe believes that gender identity is "immutable," ignoring the phenomenon of gender fluidity and rapid-onset gender dysphoria most common in adolescent girls, and says that demeaning it "strikes a person at the core of his being," quoting a 7th Circuit ruling about a phenomenon based on sex – sexual orientation.

He repeatedly refers to challenged athletes as "transgender" instead of male and seems particularly concerned with the visibility that Gaines has given "XX" and the popularity of the activist with the plaintiffs, "particularly Andy Foote and Kyle Fellers, [who] often reference Riley Gaines in their social media posts and on their signs/posters."

Notably, the judge didn't mention Sey's XX-XY brand, which was founded several months before the lawsuit.

6.
Judge McAuliffe mentions Riley Gaines 12 times. She was not involved in any of the action up in Bow, NH. She's just somebody the parents admire.

Judge thinks Gaines is Snidely Whiplash. Once we hear her shocking agenda we're supposed to boo every time her name comes up. pic.twitter.com/3PuJJWsNZu
— Glenna Goldis (@glennagoldis) April 15, 2025

McAuliffe paraphrased testimony by Superintendent Marcy Kelley that the XX symbol "conveys a well-understood anti-trans message" in contrast to the "Pride" symbol, which she might allow at games because it "conveys a message of inclusion and does not target or harass any specific student." (Morrison, the student, testified otherwise in his 1st Circuit case.)

Because the parties "seem to agree that the Bow soccer field and its immediate environs qualify as a limited public forum under the control of the School District," and high school athletics "ideally" serve as an extension of the classroom, albeit with spectators, Supreme Court precedent gives the school wide leeway to regulate student activities, McAuliffe wrote.

He underlined a sentence from the 1st Circuit Morrison ruling that “[it] is enough for the school to present facts which might reasonably lead school officials to forecast substantial disruption," rather than prove "serious consequences" will follow if a student isn't censored.

Kelley and others who testified "reasonably interpreted the pink XX wristbands to be sending, in substance, the same message" on Morrison's shirts, "an assertion of inauthenticity, falsity and nonexistence with respect to some students’ core and immutable characteristics (i.e., their gender identities)," the judge asserted.

"And, it seems evident that had the symbols been worn by students in school or during school activities, they could be barred as reasonably interpreted in context to convey a harassing, demeaning message likely to have a serious negative psychological impact on students who identify as transgender," McAuliffe wrote.

He waved off the plaintiffs' explanation of their intended meaning for the wristbands, rewriting it as their objection to "transgender girls" while acknowledging their "reasonable concerns related to unfair competition, risk of injury, and lost opportunities for their daughters to succeed."

The record shows the XX symbol is "associated with other meanings that are far more offensive than those ascribed by plaintiffs" and "school authorities are not obligated to ignore the broader and perhaps more prevalent meanings generally ascribed to the symbol" when they assess "its demeaning and harassing character" in the athletic context, he said.

Greg Piper

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/judge-spurs-grassroots-backlash-upholding-ban-demeaning-xx-symbol-girls-games

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Non-Orthodox Movements Sign Letter Standing With Campus Hamas Supporters - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

The final betrayal.

It’s official.

Former J Street press secretary Amy Spitalnick, who runs the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, and has turned it into an anti-Israel pressure group, boasted of bringing together the Union for Reform Judaism (and other Reform groups), and the Rabbinical Assembly of Conservative Judaism along with Reconstructionist groups to stand up for campus Hamas supporters.

The letter claims that Jewish safety is tied “to the safety of others”, in this case the safety of those calling for the murder of Jews on college campuses, and warns that “escalating federal actions have used the guise of fighting antisemitism to justify stripping students of due process rights when they face arrest and/or deportation, as well as to threaten billions in academic research and education funding.”

The Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist movements then claim that they “reject any policies or actions that foment or take advantage of antisemitism” thereby adopting the leftist anti-Israel language which accuses Jews of ‘weaponizing’ antisemitism.

“We unequivocally condemn the exploitation of our community’s real concerns about antisemitism to undermine democratic norms and rights, including the rule of law, the right of due process, and/or the freedoms of speech, press, and peaceful protest,” they assert.

Every non-Orthodox movement’s rabbinates have now chosen to stand with the leftists and Islamists who assaulted Jewish students and faculty, and with university administrators who turned a blind eye to it, over the Jewish students and communities they targeted.

They have fatally discredited themselves, not just as religious movements, but as Jewish ones. They have made it clear that they will sell out Jews to antisemitic violence as long as it comes from their side.

This is the mark of Cain. There is no coming back from this. There is no defense for the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, the Rabbinical Assembly, and Reform’s Central Conference of American Rabbis, which signed this letter standing with campus Hamas supporters like Mahmoud Khalil and Momoudo Taal.

Amy Spitalnick brags that the letters come from organizations “including three of the four denominations”.

Indeed. Three out of four denominations have betrayed American Jews. Only Orthodox Judaism and its organizations did not sign on to this betrayal.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/non-orthodox-movements-sign-letter-standing-with-campus-hamas-supporters/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Canada’s New Prime Minister Is as Dishonest as the Old One - Robert Spencer

by Robert Spencer

A shallow leftist without one original thought.

[Craving even more FPM content? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more. Click here to sign up.]

After enduring ten years of the far-left misrule of the vapid and eternally callow Justin Trudeau, Canada has a new prime minister, but not any new ideas or any change of direction at the top: the new boss, Mark Carney, is the same as the old boss, a shallow leftist ideologue without an original thought in his entire sorry cerebellum, which is filled instead with the usual talking points of the leftist establishment that still wields power in much of the Western world.

Fox News reported recently that Carney was speaking at a rally out in Calgary, Alberta, when a frenzied leftist in the crowd screamed: “Mr. Carney, there’s a genocide happening in Palestine!” Instead of responding the way any public figure with even a modicum of interest in the truth would have and should have done, Carney went along. After all, leftists have been passionately advancing the lie that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza practically since the moment that the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas massacre of 1,200 Israelis was over. Who is Carney, a loyal leftist apparatchik if there ever was one, to offer a word of dissent?

And so the dutiful Carney toed the party line. Fox noted that he “thanked the protester and said, ‘I’m aware, which is why we have an arms embargo’ as the crowd began chanting his name.” That’s what happens when you’re speaking to a gaggle of leftists and you affirm them in their delusions and fantasies: they treat as if you were the most magnificent of heroes. If, on the other hand, Carney had treated the crowd to some unwelcome truths, he would have been in danger of being torn limb from limb.

That doesn’t get him off the hook, however. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately took umbrage at the spectacle of Carney repeating Hamas talking points, and said: “Canada has always sided with civilization. So should Mr. Carney. But instead of supporting Israel, a democracy that is fighting a just war with just means against the barbarians of Hamas, he attacks the one and only Jewish state. Mr. Carney, backtrack your irresponsible statement.”

Canada’s Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) said: “It is outrageous to see politicians fuel antisemitism through false narratives of demonization. There is no genocide in Gaza. Claiming otherwise is false.”

Facing the backlash, Carney punted and took the coward’s way out. He “claimed he did not hear the protester say the word ‘genocide.’” Carney explained: “It’s noisy. If you’re up there you hear snippets of what people say and I heard Gaza, and my point was I’m aware of the situation in Gaza.” As Old Joe Biden would say, come on, man! Does Carney really expect anyone to believe this?

The conclusive evidence that Carney heard the word “genocide” loud and clear is that he didn’t answer simply that he was “aware” of the situation in Gaza, as he now claims. Instead, he added: “That’s why we have an arms embargo.” That embargo is aimed at stymieing Israel’s efforts to defend itself against Hamas, as Fox explains: “Canada began halting arms sales to Israel in January 2024. Months later, in September 2024, Canadian Foreign Minister Melanie Joly said that she had suspended the permits of multiple companies over a U.S. plan to sell Canadian-made ammo to Israel. She said that Canada would ‘not have any form of arms or parts of arms be sent to Gaza, period.’”

Yet amid all this self-righteous leftist posturing (and acts to ensure that Muslim voters keep pulling those levers for leftist candidates), there is actually no genocide in Gaza. Hamas itself actually admitted this at the beginning of this month. The Jerusalem Post reported on April 2 that Hamas “quietly removed the names of thousands of Palestinians it had previously alleged were killed during the Israel-Hamas war.” The jihad terror group “previously claimed that 70% of casualties have been women and children, a claim no longer reflected in their recently updated lists, according to the research. Approximately 72% of fatalities between the ages of 13-55 are men – the demographic category aligns with Hamas combatants.”

Has Carney not gotten this news? Or does he simply not care, because the new Hamas numbers don’t align with his political agenda, which includes the aggressive courting of Canada’s rapidly growing Muslim population? Either way, he is not fit to be Canada’s prime minister. There’s another thing he has in common with Justin Trudeau.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 28 books, including many bestsellers, such as The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), The Truth About Muhammad, The History of Jihad, and The Critical Qur’an. His latest book is Muhammad: A Critical Biography. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/canadas-new-prime-minister-is-as-dishonest-as-the-old-one/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Will Harvard Go Full Hillsdale? - Victor Davis Hanson

by Victor Davis Hanson

Harvard risks $2.2B in federal funds as it defies anti-discrimination mandates, drawing comparisons to Hillsdale's stand-alone model of rejecting government strings.

Harvard University has rejected various demands of a presidential commission on anti-Semitism.

The task force wants to persuade Harvard to ensure Jewish students on its campus are no longer harassed, or else lose its federal funding.

Harvard retorts that it won’t be bullied by Washington.

Among its other requirements, the Trump administration also warned Harvard to cease using race as a criterion in its admissions, hiring, and promotion, contrary to law.

And it also directed the campus to ban the use of masks that, in the post-COVID era of protests, have emboldened violent demonstrators with anonymity.

The administration’s order to stop race-based bias was in accordance with civil rights statutes, and a recent Supreme Court decision specifically banning affirmative action at Harvard and elsewhere.

No matter. Harvard claimed that the Trump administration infringed upon its First Amendment rights.

So, it has temporarily rejected the administration’s orders. At least for now, Harvard has lost its annual $2.2 billion grant of federal funds.

Former President Barack Obama, among others, lauded Harvard’s rejection of the demands of the administration’s anti-Semitism task force. He claimed the Trump administration’s efforts were ham-handed.

But what academic freedom are Harvard and Obama talking about? The freedom to discriminate and segregate by race in hiring, admissions, dorms, and graduations?

The freedom of 500 Harvard students to crash the classes of others, shut down traffic, and harass students on the basis of their religion or views on Israel?

Despite all of Harvard’s platitudes, its classrooms are still being disrupted. Jewish students remain fearful.

And what would Obama say if, for example, African-American students at Harvard were harassed on campus by masked disrupters?

Or black studies classes were crashed by students wearing scarves over their faces as they vented their hatred? Would he press the Trump administration to force Harvard to honor federal civil rights protections?

Remember, Harvard is a private university with a largely untaxed endowment of over $50.2 billion. Yet again, it still receives some $2.2 billion—now suspended—in federal funds.

The administration task force is not forcing Harvard to run its university according to its version of federal dictates.

Instead, the Trump commission is simply warning Harvard that if, in addition to its huge sources of private funding, it still wishes continuance of some $2.2 billion in public money from the federal government, then it must comply with existing laws and executive orders.

Does Harvard remember the embarrassing testimony of its former president, Claudine Gay?

She failed to assure a congressional committee that Harvard had taken action against openly hostile anti-Semitic student protestors during its growing protest movements.

Does Harvard understand why the Supreme Court ruled it had violated the “Equal Protection Clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment and was culpable of prejudice against Asian-Americans?

Does Harvard have any clue why it has lost some $150 million per annum of donor giving?

Does Harvard realize that no one believes its pretenses anymore that it “cannot and will not tolerate disruption” of classes—given that it still happens all the time at its various professional schools and undergraduate courses?

Perhaps Harvard should follow the strategy of independent Hillsdale College, which long ago wished to be free of federal dictates.

So, unlike Harvard, the college put its proverbial money where its mouth was and agreed unilaterally to give up all federal funding to be free of Washington’s octopus tentacles.

Yet, there is one critical distinction between Hillsdale and Harvard.

Hillsdale does not take federal money, period—whether doled out by either a Democrat or Republican administration.

It sincerely believes that too often the federal government itself does not follow the Constitution, impinges on freedom, and forces colleges to violate equality under the law when discriminating by race and gender.

Harvard has no such principles.

Its beef is not with the notion of an overweening federal government, eager to coerce private colleges to follow particular protocols.

Instead, it is at war only with the Trump commission or, in theory, any other similar conservative administration that might wish it to adhere to the law as a condition of being federally funded.

Otherwise, Harvard has no problem with an activist federal government, as long as it is a liberal one forcing all sorts of Title IX or DEI initiatives on private and Christian colleges that apparently lost their autonomy by accepting federal money. It has said nothing when state and federal governments in the past gratuitously hounded Hillsdale.

So, Harvard loudly can set itself free by permanently pursuing its agenda on its own $50 billion, in the same manner Hillsdale does quietly with its $1 billion—without the taxpayer’s dime, whether Democratic or Republican.

Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness and the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He is an American military historian, columnist, a former classics professor, and scholar of ancient warfare. He has been a visiting professor at Hillsdale College since 2004, and is the 2023 Giles O'Malley Distinguished Visiting Professor at the School of Public Policy, Pepperdine University. Hanson was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2007 by President George W. Bush, and the Bradley Prize in 2008. Hanson is also a farmer (growing almonds on a family farm in Selma, California) and a critic of social trends related to farming and agrarianism. He is the author of the just released New York Times best seller, The End of Everything: How Wars Descend into Annihilation, published by Basic Books on May 7, 2024, as well as the recent The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won, The Case for Trump, and The Dying Citizen.

Source: https://amgreatness.com/2025/04/17/will-harvard-go-full-hillsdale/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter