The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.
From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."
Trump had previously stated that the country's oil infrastructure was at risk of exploding due to the lack of storage for its oil production, which the blockade prevents from leaving the country.
President Donald Trump won't accept a proposal that Iran put forth to
end the war because it doesn't include a key agreement that the
president demands.
Iran offered to end its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, but the
agreement would leave negotiations on the issues of its nuclear program
for a later date.
He said the U.S. blockade is "somewhat more effective" than a bombing
campaign. Unnamed sources told Axios he hadn't yet ordered strikes, but
a meme the president posted Tuesday morning suggests the possibility is on the table.
"They are choking like a stuffed pig," Trump said. "And it is going to be worse for them. They can't have a nuclear weapon."
The president had previously stated that the country's oil infrastructure was at risk of exploding due to the lack of storage for its oil production, which the blockade prevents from leaving the country.
Trump alsos said Iran wants to lift the blockade, but he won't do it because he doesn't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
U.S. Central Command has prepared a plan for a “short and powerful” wave of strikes.
An F/A-18E Super Hornet, attached to
Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 14, taxis on the flight deck of
Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln as part of “Operation
Epic Fury,” April 16, 2026. Credit: U.S. Navy.
U.S. President Donald Trump is expected to receive a briefing on
plans for potential renewed military action against Iran on Thursday,
sources with knowledge of the matter told Axios.
United
States Central Command has prepared a plan for a “short and powerful”
wave of strikes, likely including the Islamic Republic’s key
infrastructure, in hopes of breaking the stalemate in the talks, the
outlet cited three sources as saying.
Other options include an
operation to take over part of the Strait of Hormuz and reopen it to
commercial shipping, and a special forces raid to secure Iran’s highly
enriched uranium, according to Axios.
Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine and CENTCOM commander Adm. Brad Cooper are expected to attend Thursday’s deliberations.
Two sources told Axios
that while Trump sees the blockade as Washington’s primary source of
leverage in the negotiations, he would consider military action if the
Islamic regime still will not concede. U.S. military planners are
considering the possibility that Tehran will attack forces in the region
in retaliation for the naval blockade, the report noted.
Iranian
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei posted a series of tweets on X
on Thursday claiming that a new day is dawning when America’s bases in
the region can’t defend themselves, let alone their local allies.
“A new chapter for the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz is unfolding,” the leader of the Islamic Republic tweeted.
“Today,
it has been proven to not only the global public opinion but even to
the rulers of countries that the U.S.’s presence and establishment in
the Persian Gulf is the main source of instability in the region,” he
added. “The U.S.’s flimsy bases lack the resilience and capability even
to ensure their own security, let alone provide any hope for U.S.'s
dependents and the U.S.-worshippers in the region.”
Trump told
reporters in the Oval Office on Wednesday that “at this moment, there
will never be a deal unless they agree that there will be no nuclear
weapons.”
The talks with Tehran have “come a long way,” he said. “The question is whether or not they’re going to go far enough.”
The
president warned earlier on Wednesday that Iran “better get smart
soon,” saying the mullahs “don’t know how to sign a non-nuclear deal” to
end the war.
“Iran can’t get their act together,” Trump wrote on
Truth Social, posting an edited picture of himself walking through a
war-torn scene with explosions behind him while holding a rifle.
“No more Mr. Nice Guy!” the image caption read.
White
House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters in Washington on
Monday that Trump’s red lines for a deal with Iran have been made “very,
very clear,” following Tehran’s latest proposal to end hostilities.
Under
the Islamic Republic’s plan, the regime would reopen the Strait of
Hormuz in exchange for a long-term ceasefire or permanent end to the
war, a U.S. official and two sources with knowledge of the matter told Axios.
Nuclear
negotiations would only start at a later stage, after the U.S. military
lifts its naval blockade of Iranian ports, according to the reported
details of the proposal.
Washington has repeatedly stressed that
the nuclear issue must be dealt with from the outset, and Trump was
unhappy with Tehran’s offer for that reason, a U.S. official briefed on
the deliberations at the White House told Reuters.
CNN
cited a source familiar with the matter as saying that the president
was unlikely to accept the plan, as it could remove a key piece of
American leverage in the talks.
Federal prosecutors say the Southern Poverty Law Center directed a source to promote the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally and coordinate transportation for attendees. Afterwards, the media cited one senior executive as an authoritative source on white supremacy.
In the wake of the Charlottesville rally in August 2017,
the media relied on Southern Poverty Law Center experts to explain an
apparent rise in white supremacy in America after Donald Trump’s
election.
But, while SPLC’s experts helped the media understand
America’s racism problem after the rally, it was allegedly funding an
organizer of the event, a member of a racist group prone to extremism.
At the same time it was double-dipping, the Charlottesville rally launched SPLC’s credibility to new heights and boosted its fundraising hauls.
Throughout the last decade, SPLC also covertly funded
members of racist groups prone to extremism, including the Aryan
Nations, the Ku Klux Klan and the National Socialist Party of America,
federal prosecutors alleged in a recent indictment, which charged the
organization with 11 counts of wire and bank fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. In total, they allege SPLC funneled more than $3 million from 2014 to 2023 to individuals associated with these and other similar groups.
The “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia,
was a major cultural touchstone in the first Trump administration that
launched a resurgence in concern, especially in the media, over
right-wing extremism and racist groups.
The rally, which occurred amid the controversy over the
removal of Confederate monuments by local governments, took place on
Aug. 11-12, 2017, just months into Donald Trump’s first term. At least
30 people were injured when protesters clashed with counter-protesters
and one person was killed by a motorist about a half-mile from the
protests.
The president faced withering criticism from the left for not responding immediately to the incident and later for saying
there were “very fine people, on both sides,” though he made clear he
was referring to those on both sides of the debate about the removal of
historical statues.
"You’re changing history. You’re changing culture," said
Trump. "And you had people – and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and
the white nationalists – because they should be condemned totally. But
you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white
nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly."
The rally even became one of the central justifications for Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign.
"In that moment, I knew the threat to this nation was
unlike any I had ever seen in my lifetime," Biden said in his 2019 video
announcing his run for president. He spent the campaign frequently
saying that “democracy is at stake" and warning that then-President
Trump wanted to end it.
In the indictment last week, prosecutors allege SPLC
allegedly directed a source to promote the Charlottesville “Unite the
Right” rally and coordinate transportation for attendees – only to
later use that same event as a fundraising hook to warn donors about the growing threat of extremism.
The source, identified as “F-37” in the indictment, was
part of the “online leadership chat group that planned” the August 2017
event.
"[F-37] attended the event at the direction of the SPLC.
F-37 made racist postings under the supervision of the SPLC and helped
coordinate transportation to the event for several attendees. Between
2015 and 2023, the SPLC secretly paid F-37 more than $270,000.00,” the
indictment reads.
Yet, despite directly funding one of the organizers of the
incident, SPLC deployed its then-director of intelligence Heidi Beirich
to comment on the alleged rise of white supremacy in the United States.
“Since the era of formal white supremacy – right before the
Civil Rights Act when we ended [legal] segregation – since that time,
this is the most enlivened that we've seen the white supremacist
movement,” Beirich told ABC News just days after the rally.
Separately, she told CBS News
that "In all of our years of tracking, we've never seen this many
[hate] groups … "We've never seen their ideas penetrating the mainstream
the way they are. I would say most Americans don't realize how much of
this there is."
Media outlets would continue to rely on SPLC’s Beirich for
years. In subsequent interviews the following year, she blamed President
Trump directly for the alleged rise in white supremacy and claimed his
comments after the rally and his policies emboldened extremists.
“This has been a year that has seen increasing divisiveness and bigotry, particularly in the mainstream of American life,” Beirich told reporters
in February 2018. “There has been a substantial emboldenment of the
radical right and that is largely due to the actions of President Trump,
who has tweeted out hate materials and made light of the threat to our
society posed by hate groups.”
In an interview with NPR
later that year, nearing the anniversary of Charlottesville, Beirich
said the president’s “anti-immigrant policies” like the “Muslim ban”
have contributed to the flourishing of white supremacy.
Beirich did not respond to a request for comment from Just the News sent to her new organization, the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism.
CBS News, The Washington Post and NPR did not respond to requests for comment about their articles citing Beirich.
For decades, the SPLC has positioned itself as the nation’s preeminent watchdog, which maintains a controversial "Hate Map" that has increasingly labeled benign conservative organizations and religious groups as hate groups.
The DOJ alleges the SPLC utilized a network of shell
companies – with names like "Center Investigative Agency" and "Fox
Photography" – to disguise payments to individuals associated with those
groups.
While the SPLC claims these were legitimate payments for
undercover informants to monitor threats, the FBI and DOJ allege the
funds were used to ensure that "hate" remained visible enough to justify
the SPLC’s mission and purpose.
The group's recent financial success can likely be
attributed to the claims of escalating white supremacy it had proffered.
SPLC’s donations surged in the wake of the Charlottesville rally and
its most recent financial filings show that the group is flush with
cash, boasting nearly $790 million in net assets.
The organization reported a large surge in revenue
following the Charlottesville rally in particular. In 2016, a year
prior, SPLC reported net assets and public donations at $51 million. The
following year, by October 2017, SPLC reported $133 million. This rapid
change was driven in part by contributions from public figures like
George Clooney and Apple CEO Tim Cook, Fox News Digital reported.
The landmark Supreme Court ruling in Louisiana v. Callais is expected to have sweeping implications for redistricting nationwide.
As the November 2026 congressional elections approach, more than 45
redistricting disputes remain unresolved in federal and state courts,
casting a cloud of legal uncertainty over the fight for control of the
U.S. House of Representatives.
A New Era of Constant Redistricting
Mid-decade redistricting—once rare and typically considered
extraordinary—has become increasingly common. Lawmakers in both parties
are redrawing congressional boundaries outside the traditional
once-a-decade cycle, citing population shifts, court rulings, and
changing political conditions.
“I’ve never run in the same district twice. That is how far things
have gone when it comes to gerrymandering," Louisiana GOP Rep. Julia
Letlow said on the John Solomon Reports podcast hours after the
Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a 6-3 ruling striking down
Louisiana’s congressional map on the ground that the state’s creation of
a second majority-black district constituted an unconstitutional racial
gerrymander.
The landmark ruling is expected to have sweeping implications for redistricting nationwide.
The surge in redistricting has produced a sprawling web of
litigation. Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Joe Gruters
told Just the News earlier this month that the party is
involved in “30 lawsuits across 32 states,” adding that Republicans are
trying to act proactively to combat what he described as aggressive
efforts by Democrats.
The legal challenges from both sides involve a range of claims,
including racial discrimination, partisan gerrymandering, and procedural
violations. With primary elections approaching in some states, courts
face growing pressure to issue timely rulings. Several cases appear
likely to stretch into the summer on appeal, raising the possibility of
emergency intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Many of the cases – some decided and some still pending – could
reshape electoral maps in several battleground states ahead of the 2026
midterms.
Louisiana v. Callais: A Transformative Ruling from the High Court
The Louisiana case, Louisiana v. Callais, centered on
whether the state, in attempting to comply with Section 2 of the Voting
Rights Act, relied too heavily on race in drawing district lines.
A three-judge federal panel had previously found that the district’s
unusual configuration subordinated traditional redistricting principles
to racial considerations. In a majority opinion written by Justice
Alito, the Supreme Court affirmed that lower court ruling.
Virginia: Ballot Victory Meets Legal Resistance
In Virginia, voters narrowly approved a Democratic-backed
constitutional amendment on April 21 that would temporarily allow the
General Assembly to redraw congressional districts ahead of the 2026
midterms.
Supporters framed the measure as a one-time effort to “restore
fairness.” It passed with about 51.7% of the vote and could shift the
state’s 11-member House delegation toward Democrats.
The amendment, however, is facing several legal challenges. Lawsuits
backed by Republican lawmakers and allied groups argue that Democratic
legislators improperly extended a special session and bypassed various
procedural and constitutional requirements.
Soon after the election, a Tazewell County circuit judge ordered the
state to halt certification of the referendum results pending review by
the Virginia Supreme Court. The ruling cast uncertainty over the
amendment’s future.
Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones appealed the ruling, and the
state’s high court heard arguments earlier this week. In a brief order
issued Tuesday, the court declined to lift the lower court’s hold –
leaving certification paused for now.
The court must still decide whether to uphold or strike down the
amendment. Additional federal challenges are expected regardless of the
outcome.
Texas: Supreme Court Clears GOP Map
On April 27, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a summary reversal in a
closely watched Texas case, allowing the Republican-controlled
Legislature’s 2025 mid-decade congressional map to take effect for the
2026 elections. The liberal justices – Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena
Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson – dissented.
The decision overturned a lower federal court injunction that had
blocked the map on racial-gerrymandering grounds. The lower court had
concluded that race predominated in drawing several districts, in
violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
The decision is expected to bolster Republican efforts to expand their narrow House majority.
Florida: New Proposal Sets Up Legal Fight
Also on April 27, Florida GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis unveiled a proposed
congressional map that could add up to four Republican-leaning seats,
potentially expanding the state’s GOP advantage in the House delegation.
Released just 24 hours before a special legislative session, the
proposal redraws districts in Central and South Florida, pairing some
Democratic incumbents and extending Republican-leaning suburbs into more
favorable districts. DeSantis described the plan as aligning
representation with the state’s current political landscape.
The proposal immediately drew criticism, with opponents calling it a
partisan gerrymander in violation of Florida’s constitutional ban on
maps designed to favor a political party.
But the map is expected to pass during the special legislative
session and could be used in the midterms if it survives court
challenges.
Lawsuits from Democratic organizations are widely expected,
particularly given that Florida courts have struck down similar maps in
recent years.
The Stakes Ahead
These and other pending disputes illustrate how redistricting has
evolved from a once-per-decade administrative process into a continuous
political and legal contest.
With the midterms quickly approaching and control of the House
potentially hinging on only a few seats, both parties are pouring
significant resources into litigation and mapmaking.
For now, the dozens of pending cases point to a defining reality of
American politics: the battle over who draws the lines can be as
consequential as the votes cast within them.
The legislation, which still needs to pass the Senate by Friday, will renew Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
The House approved the renewal of a foreign surveillance powers resolution Wednesday, despite concerns from a handful of Republican lawmakers.
The legislation, dubbed the "Foreign Intelligence Accountability
Act," passed in a bipartisan 235-191 split. The legislation, which still
needs to pass the Senate by Friday, will renew Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
FISA Section 702 has long-drawn scrutiny from privacy hawks due to
the ability of the intelligence community to gather information on
Americans without a warrant while surveilling foreigners.
The vote comes after President Donald Trump urged Republicans last
week to vote for a clean extension because of the ongoing conflict with
Iran.
The legislation extends the surveillance powers for three years and
allows a larger group of lawmakers to review information presented to
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, according to The Hill.
Misty Severi is a news reporter for Just The News. You can follow her on X for more coverage.
Despite international promises, diplomatic initiatives, and the much-publicized "Board of Peace," the Iran-backed Islamist group has not disarmed, relinquished control, or moderated its behavior.
Six months after the
ceasefire went into effect in the Gaza Strip, Hamas remains firmly in
power. Despite international promises, diplomatic initiatives, and the
much-publicized "Board of Peace," the Iran-backed Islamist group has not
disarmed, relinquished control, or moderated its behavior. Instead, it
appears to be using the ceasefire as an opportunity to entrench its
rule, regroup militarily, and tighten its grip on the Palestinian
population.
The persistence of Hamas rule also raises serious questions about
the Trump administration's policy. Why is Hamas still in power six
months after the ceasefire? Why has Trump's "Board of Peace" failed to
achieve its most basic objective: forcing Hamas to hand over its weapons
and relinquish control over the Gaza Strip? If anything, the ceasefire
has strengthened Hamas, giving it time to rearm, reorganize, and
reassert control over the population.
Why is there insufficient pressure on key mediators such as Egypt
and Qatar to hold Hamas accountable? What concrete steps will the Trump
Administration take to ensure that Hamas does not remain the de facto ruler of the Gaza Strip?
Without decisive action, the current approach is legitimizing an
Islamist terror regime, Hamas, committed to Israel's destruction,
engaged in the systematic abuse of its own people, and, as the Trump
Administration has seen with Iran, no intention whatever of giving up
its rule.
So long as Hamas remains in power, there can be no positive future for the Gaza Strip.
If anything, the ceasefire has strengthened Hamas, giving it
time to rearm, reorganize, and reassert control over the population.
Pictured: Hamas terrorists in Jabalia refugee camp, in the Gaza Strip,
on December 1, 2025. (Photo by Omar Al-Qataa/AFP via Getty Images)
While much of the world's attention remains fixed on Iran and the
broader regional conflict, a darker and largely ignored reality is
unfolding inside the Gaza Strip: credible and deeply disturbing reports of sexual exploitation, abuse, and coercion carried out under Hamas rule.
New testimonies emerging from the Gaza Strip reveal
that Hamas terrorists are systematically sexually exploiting vulnerable
Palestinian women -- demanding sex in exchange for basic aid, food, and
shelter. The accounts describe a predatory system targeting widows, displaced mothers, and divorcees without male breadwinners, with victims threatened into silence by Hamas operatives.
Six months after the ceasefire went into effect in the Gaza Strip,
Hamas remains firmly in power. Despite international promises,
diplomatic initiatives, and the much-publicized "Board of Peace," the
Iran-backed Islamist group has not disarmed, relinquished control, or
moderated its behavior. Instead, it appears to be using the ceasefire as
an opportunity to entrench its rule, regroup militarily, and tighten
its grip on the Palestinian population.
According to an investigative report in Britain's Daily Mail,
Palestinian women are being sexually abused by Hamas terrorists and
forced to have sex in return for food aid. Human rights organizations in
the Gaza Strip told the newspaper that up to 60,000 women are
vulnerable, with reports also indicating a rise in child marriages and
pregnancies.
The report quotes a Gazan man, whose identity was not released for
security reasons, describing "how he found a widow displaced in the war
being molested inside a tent by 'a bunch of' Hamas members and was
warned to stay silent":
"We were contacted by the wife of a friend. She had asked
a [Hamas military wing] Qassam Brigades commander to help her, but he
took advantage of her. His behavior is disgraceful. We investigated the
matter and found her in a tent in the Gharabli area where a bunch of
Qassam members were taking advantage of her. We informed the leadership
but were told we had to keep silent about it."
The report added:
"Another Gazan man confirmed that a similar episode had
happened with one of his female neighbours, who was blackmailed by 'one
of Hamas's charity organisations... they wanted her to wh*** herself in
exchange for a food parcel, or an aid voucher, or 100 shekels.'"
Noor (not her real name), a divorced mother of four, recounted:
"I am a mother of four children. I am displaced because
of the war and I do not belong to a recognised displacement camp, so I
did not receive any aid. I went to an Islamic charity that distributes
aid to displaced and needy people in Gaza. I was welcomed by a man who
looked religious, like a sheikh. He said he would stand by me and help
me. I told him I was separated from my husband. He said: 'Oh, separated?
A woman as beautiful as you?'"
She said the man took her phone number under the pretext that he wanted to help her.
"From the beginning, the way he spoke to me felt like
harassment. I am much younger than him. I trusted him because he was an
older man; I saw him like a father. He is the age of my father, but he
harassed me directly. I was afraid, of course. He was pursuing me. I
told him I would expose him. He said: 'You cannot expose me, I am the
government here.'"
Noor added, "They exploit women's need for help. But the women are too scared to speak up."
Even more disturbing are allegations involving children. A separate report by the Daily Mail
tells of minors who have been sexually abused by Hamas-affiliated
clerics and then blackmailed into silence. Families, according to
testimonies, are threatened with severe consequences, including
accusations of collaborating with Israel, if they dare to speak out. In
Palestinian society, an accusation of collaboration with Israel can
amount to a death sentence.
A nine-year-old Palestinian boy said he was sexually assaulted by a sheikh inside a mosque:
"I went to pray at the mosque that day, it was before the
'asr prayer, I was studying the Quran,' says the nine-year-old before
naming the Sheikh that was there. We were studying the Qur'an together.
He said to me, 'come with me, I want to give you something nice.' He
took me to the restrooms and undressed me, took off my pants and had his
way with me. I started to scream and then I cried."
The report relates the experiences of other victims:
"[A] ten-year-old described how he used to be the first
child to arrive at the mosque until one day a Sheikh asked to follow him
upstairs. 'So I went upstairs, he pulled down my pants and started to
do filthy things to me,' the boy said.
"A 42-year-old father of a third victim who was raped in a Mosque in
Khan Younes, recalls how his hysterical wife called him at work to say:
'Your son is bleeding and has bruises all over his body.'"
These accounts are not isolated. In fact, they point to a broader pattern.
The use of sexual violence by Hamas did not begin in the Gaza Strip
during the recent war, which erupted with the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led
invasion of Israel. On that day, Hamas terrorists carried out
widespread acts of rape and sexual abuse against Israeli girls and women. Israeli hostages – both male and female – who were held by Hamas have since reported sexual harassment and abuse while in captivity.
What is now emerging from the Gaza Strip suggests that such brutality
is not only directed outward, against Israelis, but also inward,
against Palestinians themselves.
Yet the response from the international community has been conspicuously muted.
Where are the global human rights organizations? Where are the
international women's groups that are usually quick to condemn sexual
violence in conflict zones? Why has there been no urgent investigation
by the United Nations into Hamas's crimes against Palestinian women and
children? Why has UN Women failed to respond meaningfully to these
allegations?
The silence is beyond offensive. One possible explanation is fear –
both among local NGOs operating under Hamas rule and among international
organizations wary of confronting the Islamist terror group. Another is
political bias: a reluctance to highlight abuses that complicate the
prevailing narrative that views Israel as the only villain.
Whatever the reason, the failure to address these allegations amounts
to a betrayal of the very people these organizations claim to defend.
The persistence of Hamas rule also raises serious questions about the
Trump administration's policy. Why is Hamas still in power six months
after the ceasefire? Why has Trump's "Board of Peace" failed to achieve
its most basic objective: forcing Hamas to hand over its weapons and
relinquish control over the Gaza Strip? If anything, the ceasefire has
strengthened Hamas, giving it time to rearm, reorganize, and reassert
control over the population.
The Trump Administration, which has championed the ceasefire deal,
now faces a critical test. Why is there insufficient pressure on key
mediators such as Egypt and Qatar to hold Hamas accountable? What
concrete steps will the Trump Administration take to ensure that Hamas
does not remain the de facto ruler of the Gaza Strip?
Without decisive action, the current approach is legitimizing an
Islamist terror regime, Hamas, committed to Israel's destruction,
engaged in the systematic abuse of its own people, and, as the Trump
Administration has seen with Iran, no intention whatever of giving up
its rule.
So long as Hamas remains in power, there can be no positive future for the Gaza Strip.
Bassam Tawil is a Muslim Arab based in the Middle
East. His work is made possible through the generous donation of a
couple who wish to remain anonymous. Gatestone is most grateful.
The new tool will allow London to proscribe Iran’s IRGC.
People attend a protest in London’s Golders Green area against
antisemitism, following the stabbing of two Jews, April 29, 2026. Photo
by Carl Court/Getty Images.
The British government on Thursday said it would pass legislation to
tackle threats by state-sponsored terrorists, after two Jewish men were
wounded in a stabbing in north London.
“What we saw last night
was people being targeted because they are Jewish,” British Prime
Minister Keir Starmer said in a speech during a criminal justice
roundtable. “I am absolutely clear about that and of course our thoughts
are with the victims, and we wish them a speedy recovery, and with
their families and loved ones.”
“We are fast-tracking legislation
to deal with malign state actors,” the premier continued. “Of course we
must absolutely deal with the root causes of both antisemitism and
extremism. But today is about part of the response, which is really
important, which is the criminal justice response.”
U.K. Minister
of State for Security Dan Jarvis told local media that the new
legislation would allow the prosecution under Britain’s National
Security Act of people acting on behalf of a state-sponsored group.
“This
morning, we’re confirming that we will fast-track through parliament a
new bill to provide that state-threats-legislation tool; that will be
really helpful, we don’t have that at the moment,” Jarvis told the GB News broadcaster.
“The
new tool that I’m talking about, that we’re able to fast-track through
parliament, will give us that capability to proscribed state-backed
entities such as the IRGC,” the minister said, in reference to Iran’s
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which over the years has sponsored
terrorist attacks on Jewish and Israeli sites around the world.
A
pro-Iranian terrorist group, Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiya, has
claimed responsibility for several recent attacks on Jewish sites across
Europe, including arson targeting ambulances operated by a Jewish
charity, Hatzola Northwest, in Golders Green last month.
London
has designated the IRGC as a terrorist organization, but it is not
formally proscribed, limiting the legal powers available against it,
Jarvis noted in the GB News interview.
He refused, however, to commit to a blanket ban of antisemitic pro-Palestinian marches in an interview with Times Radio.
“The
right to protest is an important part of our democracy and, within the
constraints of the law, of course, people do have a right to exercise
their freedom of speech, but I completely understand the concerns that
have been expressed by members of the Jewish community about these
marches,” he explained.
“That’s why the home secretary, [Shabana
Mahmood], used powers that have not been used for a very long time to
ban the Al-Quds march that was due to take place in London a few weeks
ago and, of course, we will want to do everything that we possibly can
to provide that reassurance to the Jewish community,” Jarvis added.
London’s Metropolitan Police on Wednesday evening formally declared a stabbing attack in the heavily Jewish neighborhood of Golders Green a “terrorist incident.”
A
45-year-old suspect—a British national born in Somalia—was arrested on
suspicion of attempted murder, police said. The terrorist was taken into
custody at a London police station after initial treatment at a
hospital for taser injuries sustained during his arrest.
The two victims have been named locally as Shloime Rand, 34, and Moshe Shine, 76, according to the BBC. They received initial treatment at the scene and are now hospitalized in stable condition.
U.K.
Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis on Wednesday night urged his X followers to
pray “for a swift and complete recovery for the victims of today’s
attack: Nachman Moshe ben Chaya Sarah and Moshe Ben Baila.”
Rand’s mother told the BBC on Thursday that her son “was walking on the street minding his own business” when the stabbing took place.
“I was able to see him yesterday. Thank God, he was conscious the whole time. We hope he will be home before Shabbat,” she said.
“As
a mother, I’m pretty horrified that these things could happen on the
streets of London, in an innocent community where we try our best not to
hurt anyone,” she said.
Testimony came the same day FBI raided over 20 Minneapolis childcare facilities in a sweeping federal fraud probe
A former investigator for Minnesota's Department of Human Services alleged that the state's government illegally tried to shut down his investigation into childcare fraud in 2017.
Jay
Swanson, a former investigator in the Office of Inspector General for
Minnesota's Department of Human Services, described in detail a 2018
incident in which a senior official allegedly instructed him to delete
paragraphs from a report on fraud in the state's Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP).
"In
August of 2018, as I was preparing answers to questions posed to me by
the OLA [Office of the Legislative Auditor] in an email, I was told by a
DHS [Department of Human Services] official to submit my answers to
them instead of sending them directly to the OLA," Swanson, who
previously served as a Minnesota State Trooper, said Tuesday during a
Minnesota House Fraud Prevention Committee hearing.
FBI
and law enforcement agents raided Mini Childcare, formerly Mako
Childcare, in south Minneapolis on Tuesday, April 28, 2026. Mini
Childcare was one of 22 sites targeted Tuesday morning as part of a
fraud probe in Minnesota.(Anthony Souffle/The Minnesota Star Tribune via Getty Images)
"When
I forwarded my answer regarding what fraud trends we're seeing at CCAP,
as I had been directed, I soon had a senior DHS [Department of Human
Services] official in my office, angry, red-faced and almost yelling.
The senior DHS [Department of Human Services] official told me to delete
a number of paragraphs of the document that I had sent," Swanson
testified.
"I then advised the official that I believed what they were telling me to do was illegal. I advised them that Minnesota law
requires state employees to cooperate with the OLA and to turn over
information as requested. A few days later, the same official told me 'I
just came from the commissioner's office, and they're sending your
document to the OLA. You better be ready for the blank storm that's
coming your way,'" Swanson said.
Swanson described an alleged
campaign of harassment by state Department of Human Services officials
against him and his staff. He testified that a consultant was paid
$90,000 to label his assessments of fraud as made up.
Swanson's testimony Tuesday was heard the same day the FBI raided more than 20 Minneapolis childcare facilities as part of a sweeping federal fraud investigation.
Included in the raid was the Quality Learning Center,
a daycare made infamous by video blogger Nick Shirley's December video
showing the sign out front misspelled as "Quality Learing Center" and
the facility empty.
According to Swanson's testimony, that business shared an address with Salama Childcare Center, the owner of which was indicted for theft and fraud in 2017. Swanson said he led that investigation resulting in that indictment.
Swanson
testified that he and his team "had a front row seat to watch the fraud
happening, and we had regular contact with those committing the fraud."
"Beginning in 2017, we became dismayed and shocked by the response of some senior DHS [Department of Human Services] officials
to whom we reported the fraud to. As I look back with the benefit of
20/20 hindsight, I realize that what our team saw was the early stages
of a somewhat loosely organized criminal enterprise beginning to pillage
Minnesota's public benefits system," he told the committee hearing.
Swanson
alleged that "a few of the senior level DHS [Department of Human
Services] officials who harassed and abused our unit for committing the
sin of trying to expose a huge amount of fraud in the CCAP program are
still working in DHS [Department of Human Services] today."
When
pressed by state Rep. Kristin Robbins, the committee chair, to provide
the names, Swanson declined, citing an ongoing investigation. He did,
however, say that he had provided the names to the OLA.
Minnesota
House Republican members Kristin Robbins, Walter Hudson and Marion
Rarick are sworn in to testify at a U.S. House Oversight and Government
Reform Committee hearing about alleged fraud and misuse of federal funds
in Minnesota, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., Jan. 7, 2026.(REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst)
Fox News Digital contacted the OLA for additional information.
Further
revelations from Swanson included the disclosure that Minnesota was
allegedly known far and wide to would-be scammers as a hotspot ripe for
exploitation.
"More than once I heard an owner or employee respond
when we asked for the first learned about the daycare scam, he would
say they had first heard about it while in the refugee camp in Kenya," Swanson testified.
"These
individuals told us that they heard that you could run a scam in a
number of different states. But it was easiest, and you could make the
most money, doing it in Minnesota," Swanson added.
"I was shown a
text conversation between the owner of the center and a friend," Swanson
testified. "The friend had asked the owner 'how much longer are you
going to do the daycare scam?' The owner replied, 'another year or two, I
want to buy some nice homes in Nairobi. The owner was on public
assistance at this time. They happened to be on vacation in Dubai when
this text conversation took place."
The
Minnesota Department of Human Services is investigating potential
denaturalization of U.S. citizens of Somali descent involved in a
daycare fraud scheme in Minnesota.(Kevin Carter/Getty Images)
Childcare fraud has been a pervasive issue in Minnesota dating back to 2009, Swanson testified.
In
recent months, the federal government has homed in on the issue. In a
March executive order, President Donald Trump called the fraud cases an
"epidemic" and vowed to take action.
Trump's executive order also
claimed that Minnesota's Democratic leadership has offered "non-existent
oversight" on the issue, a claim the state's Democratic Gov. Tim Walz
has denied.
Despite initially suing the Trump administration for freezing federal funding for Minnesota, Walz publicly celebrated Tuesday's FBI raids.
"Today’s
raids by state and federal law enforcement happened because our state
agencies caught irregular behavior and reported it. That’s how the
system is supposed to work, and our agencies will keep at it as long as
there are fraudsters around to put behind bars," Walz said in a Tuesday post on X.
Minnesota
Gov. Tim Walz announced he will not seek reelection during a press
conference at the State Capitol in St. Paul on Jan. 5, 2026. Walz said
he concluded he cannot fully commit to a political campaign and did not
take questions from reporters. His announcement comes amid a major
social services fraud scandal in the state.(Jerry Holt/The Minnesota Star Tribune/Getty Images)
Members of the Trump administration questioned Walz's claims of cooperation.
"Come
again? This FBI and DOJ with our DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland
Security] partners drafted and executed every search warrant today. But
go ahead and take credit for our work while we smoke out the fraud
plaguing Minnesota under your governorship," FBI Director Kash Patel
wrote in a Tuesday post on X.
Minnesotan leaders also cast doubt on Walz's tough-on-fraud claims.
"After
the OLA reports came out, the new Walz administration took a look at
that. And rather than accelerating the criminal investigations, they
closed the criminal investigation unit. That allowed the fraud to
continue," Robbins told Fox News Digital.
"And
there was no criminal deterrent anymore. The people got sanctioned for
overpayment. And then they just kept billing the state. So the Walz
administration enabled the fraud to flourish by stopping the criminal
investigations," Robbins concluded.
Fox News Digital contacted
Walz, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of
Justice and Vice President JD Vance's anti-fraud task force for added
comment.
The resolution aims to condemn antisemitic hate-filled rhetoric and content disseminated by prominent online personalities," according to its proponents, Reps. Mike Lawler and Josh Gottheimer.
US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Hasan
Piker speak as initial projections of Democratic candidate for New York
City mayor Zohran Mamdani's win are declared during an election night
rally in the Brooklyn borough of New York City, New York, US, November
4, 2025.(photo credit: JEENAH MOON/REUTERS)
Reps. Mike Lawler and Josh Gottheimer are introducing a new bipartisan House resolution to condemn leftist streamer Hasan Piker and far-right podcaster Candace Owens for spreading antisemitism.
Piker condemned the move in a statement to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency,
saying that the congressmen were “making antisemitism worse”, an
allegation he has leveled frequently against antisemitism watchdogs who
have criticized him.
'Conflating legitimate critics with antisemites', says Piker
“They
are once again conflating legitimate critics of Israel with actual
antisemites,” Piker said. “They would rather complain about fake antisemitism
in defense of Israel than call out the real sources of Jew hatred with a
full chest. I have spent my entire career combating all forms of
bigotry, including antisemitism, and will continue to do so in spite of
this cynical ploy to satisfy donors.”
The resolution by Lawler, a New York Republican,
and Gottheimer, a New Jersey Democrat, states that it is “condemning
antisemitic hate-filled rhetoric and content disseminated by prominent
online personalities, and urging social media platforms and public
leaders to denounce and address such conduct.” Early draft language was
published by Jewish Insider.
It states that Piker “has often used antisemitic rhetoric, including expressing support for Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization,” and lists several other inflammatory comments the streamer has made.
Conservative
political commentator Candace Owens speaks during an event held by
national conservative political movement 'Turning Point', in Detroit,
Michigan, US, June, 14, 2024. (credit: REBECCA COOK/REUTERS)
Piker
has lately made inroads with prominent Democrats even as his rhetoric,
including stating, “Hamas is 1,000 times better” than Israel, has
concerned many Jews. He recently told JTA that he believes he
is fighting, not spreading, antisemitism, and argued that he is giving a
voice to Jews on the left who agree with his perspective.
Owens,
the resolution states, “has employed rhetoric that has included
conspiracy theories accusing Israel of controlling the United States
Government, promoting false claims that Jews are taught by ancient
religious texts to hate non-Jews, and casting doubt on the truth of the
stories of Holocaust survivors.”
The
pundit, a leading anti-Israel figure on the right, has pushed theories
that Israel was behind the assassination of Charlie Kirk and has also
promoted broader negative commentary about Judaism and Jewish figures.
Owens did not immediately return a JTA request for comment.
Statements
from both personalities, the resolution states, are “dangerous and
contribute to a climate of hatred and intolerance.” It concludes, “The
United States reaffirms its commitment to combating antisemitism and
ensuring the safety and dignity of Jewish individuals and communities
both online and offline.”
There
have been several congressional resolutions condemning specific figures
for antisemitism in recent years. Last year, Senate Democrats, led by
Jewish Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, introduced a resolution condemning
far-right white supremacist Nick Fuentes, along with Tucker Carlson,
who had interviewed him; that resolution remains in committee.
There
have also been measures to censure Democratic Reps. Rashida Tlaib,
Ilhan Omar, and former GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, for antisemitic
rhetoric. A 2018 resolution also aimed to condemn Nation of Islam leader
Louis Farrakhan.
Elite law schools churn out activists who shout down dissent, proving that legal education has traded the rule of law for ideological theater.
Last week,
UCLA law students shouted profanities, held signs with graphic
obscenities, and booed a Department of Homeland Security attorney
invited to campus to speak by the law school’s Federalist Society
chapter. Video
shows a crowded hallway where students scream at the lawyer when he
arrives and then continue howling and jeering in the lecture room, which
has perhaps 50 students, plus a few older attendees as well as security
guards in back. Students also hold up vulgar signs—“F–k You Loser”
“How’s Trump’s C–k Taste?”—and make vulgar gestures while grinning and
giggling. They slouch, put their feet on desks, stand up and sit down
repeatedly, and let their phones ring to disrupt the presentation. The
older audience members look annoyed and exasperated.
What a zoo.
This circus atmosphere sadly confirms the anti-intellectual wasteland
that much of American higher education has become, with law schools no
exception. Many seem more fit for spoiled toddlers than serious
students.
Unfortunately, the temper tantrum shout down seems almost a new normal in much of American legal education: In 2022, law students at Yale blew horns, stomped their feet, and shouted obscenities
at Alliance Defending Freedom counsel Kristen Waggoner and Yale law
professor Kate Stith, who was trying to moderate the event—which was on
free speech, no less—and who told the students to “grow up.” Then again,
in 2023, Judge Kyle Duncan of the Fifth Circuit tried to speak at Stanford Law School
but was similarly heckled by angry students—who called him a racist, of
course—and was then even scolded by a school administrator who not only
did not bring order but said shewas uncomfortable with the judge’s presence, not with the presence of angry, frothing students. Similar law school incidents have occurred at Cornell, Georgetown, the City University of New York, and the University of California Hastings.
When will Congress and state legislatures stop funding these insane asylums masquerading as places of learning?
Law students are actually older than the average undergraduate, since
law schools require admittees to already have a BA. That would put them
at between 21 and 25 years of age. But their behavior is anything but
adult. Are they products of modern homes where smartphones and computers
displace conversation and basic child-rearing? Perhaps. But it’s also
likely that law schools prefer activist students over those with moral
characteristics such as self-restraint. After all, law school faculty
and administrators are themselves mostly left-wing activists. More than 95 percent of law professors are registered Democrats, according to a National Association of Scholars legal brief and “the
ideological median is . . . not just left of center, but closer to the
left edge of the Democrat party . . . many are further left than that,”
says one Georgetown faculty member. Typical publications include titles
such as Taxing Lesbians and A Postmodern Feminist Legal Manifesto.
Worse, law students are supposed to be preparing for the legal
profession and the justice system, where words, debate, and argument
should replace physical threats, intimidation, and incivility. Yet law
students increasingly reject discourse in favor of shout downs.
Disagreements and disputes could be—and often have been—settled by
intimidation or force, whether shouting or feuds or duels. But the law
is supposed to transcend all that. The legal system is designed to
unearth facts and air arguments to get at the truth and in the process
do justice. Students who prefer shout downs and noisy protests should be
in the streets, not part of a legal system and not in legal education.
Not incidentally, courtrooms do not tolerate such antics. “Order in
the court!” is a well-known phrase, and flouting this judicial directive
is a crime called “contempt of court.” Classrooms and lecture halls
should be run on the same principles as a courtroom. Serious business
can’t be done in chaos. And neither can serious learning.
Notably, most of these law school incidents are at Federalist Society
events. The Federalist Society started in 1982 to provide a home for
law students and faculty who believed in the rule of law, not the
politicization of the law. That such a society was needed already says
something. It has since become highly regarded among non-left-wing
attorneys and within Washington, DC, legal and public policy circles. It
has also vetted many judicial nominees for President Trump.
But in the law school space, it has barely made a dent. Law schools might allow one or two Republican
professors on faculty (who tend to be Federalist Society members), but
the agreement seems to be that they not rock the boat and not bring in
more dissidents. Legal education, like almost all of American higher
education, is viewed by the Left as their territory—indeed, as prime
real estate for the transmission of their ideology. This turf belongs to
the radicals. Real thinkers—much less real lawyers—need not apply.
Indeed, most law professors aren’t lawyers in
the ordinary sense of the word. Most have never tried a case or argued
an appeal or even represented a client. They may have law degrees
(actually, they also may not) but their real job appears to be to lecture and publish on their pet political projects.
It wasn’t always this way.
In the 1950s, real lawyers taught
at law schools in the morning and attended to their private practice
and their clients in the afternoon. Law schools were state-based because
legal codes, case law, and bar exams were state-based. And law students
were expected to behave like the officers of the court they would soon
be—solicitors, barristers, prosecutors, and judges.
No such standards now.
The students at UCLA and other dystopian law schools should probably
leave America and the West to see how the rest of the world resolves
disputes. That would be a far better education.
Tribal warfare is the default in much of the Middle East, Africa, and
Central America. China notoriously has a surveillance state with little
regard for individual rights and liberties. Authoritarian regimes such
as those of the former Soviet Union would often shoot people who simply
tried to leave. In short, when people disagree, intimidation and the
threat of violence and warfare are always lurking. A legal system is
supposed to prevent that and be better than that. But legal systems,
like all systems, are only as good as the people in them.
These are basics lost on our young people—including our law students, products of American miseducation.
* * *
Teresa R. Manning is Policy Director at the National Association
of Scholars, President of the Virginia Association of Scholars, and a
former law professor at Virginia’s Scalia Law School, George Mason
University.
