Wednesday, July 17, 2024

Know your facts: Defend Israel from the International Court of Justice - Itamar Marcus


by Itamar Marcus

The International Court of Justice is set to rule on July 19 regarding the legal consequences of what it has described as Israel’s “occupation of Palestinian territories,” after being asked for an advisory, non-binding opinion by the United Nations General Assembly in 2023.


  • Fact 1: UN Resolutions 242 and 338 affirm Israel’s right under international law to administer all of what is today called Area C in Judea and Samaria, where Israelis live.

  • Fact 2: The Oslo Accords signed between Israel and PLO reaffirmed Israel’s right to administer all of Area C in Judea and Samaria.

  • Fact 3: UN 242 and the Oslo Accords do not require Israel to withdraw to new borders that do not guarantee Israel’s security.

  • Fact 4: In the hope for peace, Israel has already given up so much of its land to the Palestinian Authority that Israel no longer has secure borders, and thousands of Israelis have been murdered because of the insecure borders.

  • Fact 5: Having withdrawn to insecure borders, Israel has given away more land than required by UN 242 and the Oslo Accords, and has more than fulfilled all its withdrawal obligations under international law.

  • Conclusion 1: All Israeli towns and cities in Judea and Samaria are legal.

  • Conclusion 2: All further development by Israel of Area C, “new settlement construction” in the language of many of Israel’s detractors, is therefore 100% legal under international law.

  • Conclusion 3: If peace talks ever resume, not only isn’t Israel obliged to give away more of its land ever again, but Israel can demand that the PA withdraw from parts of Areas A and B, which Israel gave to the PA and which the PA turned into launching grounds for terror.  

The International Court of Justice is set to rule on July 19 regarding the legal consequences of what it has described as Israel’s “occupation of Palestinian territories,” after being asked for an advisory, non-binding opinion by the United Nations General Assembly in 2023. In advance of the decision, it is imperative that our readers arm themselves with the facts and understand that the UN’s own resolutions provide Israel with the legal right to live and continue building in Judea and Samaria, and never again to give away any territory there. On the contrary, Israel can demand that the Palestinian Authority be the one to withdraw.

Palestinian Media Watch laid out these arguments in an article that was published by The Jerusalem Post in 2022:


Israel under international law must never again withdraw from Judea and Samaria

Reading of Oslo Accords shows Israel has territorial claims against the PA

Itamar Marcus | September 18, 2022

This past week marked the 29th anniversary of the signing of the first in a series of agreements between Israel and the PLO commonly known as the Oslo Accords.

Article 1 of the first agreement, the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, states twice that the goal is not to supersede or replace UN Security Council Resolution 242 that was agreed upon following the 1967 Six Day War, but to implement it: “The aim of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations... [is] to establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority (i.e., Palestinian Authority)... leading to a permanent settlement based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338...”

UN Resolution 338 likewise calls for “the implementation of Security Council Resolution 242.” Significantly, the Palestinian Authority is “interim” and implementation of 242 was and remains the permanent goal of the political process with the Palestinians.

One of the most misrepresented components of Resolution 242 is that it obligated Israel to withdraw from all territories that came under Israeli administration during the war. Rather, Israel was obligated to withdraw from unspecified territories but with a critical qualification: Israel had to be assured of “secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”

By signing the Oslo Accords in 1993, Israel’s leaders had decided to “take a chance for peace,” agreeing to withdraw, cautiously and slowly, from some of the territories of Judea and Samaria, to what they hoped would be more “secure boundaries,” that would be “free from threats or acts of force.” Certainly, Israeli political leaders at the time were proud Zionists and cared about Israel and Israelis. They never would have agreed to knowingly withdraw to “insecure borders” that would endanger Israeli lives.

Tragically, the Oslo gamble backfired. Already in 1994, five suicide bombers attacked Israeli civilian targets, one murdering 22 civilians on a bus in Tel Aviv, merely months after Israel started withdrawing. And the terror has never ended. The land Israel gave away was used as a terror base in 2000 to launch a five-year terror campaign.

Hamas, Fatah and other Palestinian terror organizations launched more than 300 suicide terror attacks as well as hundreds of shooting attacks, which murdered 1,100 Israelis, and which the PA until this very day calls the “glorious” al-Aqsa Intifada. Since Israel started withdrawals, Palestinian terrorists have murdered more than 2,000 Israelis, mostly civilians.

The Israeli withdrawals to boundaries that are lethally insecure were caused by mistakes in judgment by the political and military leaders. Had Israel’s leaders known or suspected that giving the PLO land would bring about the murder of 2,000 Israelis and ongoing terror, there never would have been any Oslo Accords.

Accordingly, the Israeli government must now state loud and clear: Israel’s withdrawals have already fulfilled all the obligations under international law. Indeed, Israel has withdrawn far beyond “secure boundaries,” far beyond the requirements of UN 242, and therefore far beyond the requirements of the Oslo Accords. Israel does not have the obligation today and will never have an obligation under international law to make another withdrawal. Should an Israeli leader choose to make a further withdrawal, it will be completely voluntary.

Because of this direct link between withdrawals and terror, former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, who signed the agreements, almost brought the Oslo process to a halt. Dalia Rabin, Rabin’s daughter, told Yediot Ahronot in 2011 that her father recognized the unfolding tragedy and “he considered stopping the Oslo process.”

“Many people who were close to Father told me that on the eve of his murder he considered stopping the Oslo process because of the terror that was running rampant in the streets and that Arafat wasn’t delivering the goods. Father after all wasn’t a blind man running forward without thought. I don’t rule out the possibility that he considered also doing a reverse on our side. After all, he was someone for whom the security of the state was sacrosanct.”

The tragic murder of Rabin before he had announced his plans, enabled the withdrawals, the Oslo gamble, and the tragedies to continue. Israeli withdrawals, which were to welcome a new era in which Israel would be “free from threats or acts of force,” instead ushered in a new era in which Israel is constantly facing new terror attacks.

When the Western democracies that are attacking Israel politically claim that the regions of Judea and Samaria called “Area C” are “occupied” they are making a shameful legal misrepresentation. The Oslo Accords affirm Israel’s legal administration over all of Area C. While the Oslo Accords include text anticipating Israeli withdrawals from Area C, UN Resolution 242 and therefore the Oslo Accords do not require Israel to withdraw to even more dangerous borders than the current ones, which have proven to be lethally insecure.

In fact, a careful reading of the Oslo Accords shows something significant: It is actually Israel that has territorial claims against the PA, and it is Israel that can demand the PA return the lands to Israel that have proven to be staging grounds for terror. Article 5(4) of the Declaration of Principles states: “The outcome of the permanent status negotiations should not be prejudiced or preempted by agreements reached for the interim period.” This means that Israel’s past withdrawals to insecure boundaries during the “interim period” do not erase Israel’s legal right to demand that the PA return the land that it used for terror.

If permanent status negotiations ever resume, one of Israel’s demands to counter any Palestinian territorial demand must be that it is the PA that should withdraw from land adjacent to Area C that has been used by terrorists, thus granting Israel its rightful “secure boundaries,” under international law.

Possibly Israel’s greatest diplomatic failure has been its inability to say these words in international forums: Israel has fulfilled its obligations under international law and there will be no more Israeli withdrawals. It is time for us to say this publicly, unabashedly, and definitively to ourselves and to the international community, and then to start developing Area C of Judea and Samaria earnestly since we are here to stay.

Itamar Marcus


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Secret Service Corruption and Incompetence is No Secret - Lloyd Billingsley


by Lloyd Billingsley

Consorting with criminals, ignoring White House shooters, and failing to stop an attempted assassination.


[Order David Horowitz’s new book, America Betrayed, HERE.]

The Secret Service is coming under fire for the ease with which Thomas Matthew Crooks was able to get within 150 meters of Donald Trump, the distance U.S. Army recruits must hit human-sized targets to qualify with the M-16 rifle. Former FBI assistant director Chris Swecker also called out the Secret Service for poor communication and failing to get Trump out of the danger zone in rapid fashion. Those troubled by the attempted assassination should know that Secret Service incompetence and corruption are not new developments.

“The U.S. Secret Service has suspended four agents linked to two men accused of impersonating federal law enforcement officers who authorities said gave gifts worth thousands of dollars to agency personnel including one assigned to protect President Joe Biden’s wife,” explains an April 7, 2022 U.S. News story headlined “Four U.S. Secret Service Agents Suspended Over Ties to Phony Cops,” a reference to “Washington men” Arian Taherzadeh, 40, and Haider Ali, 35.

According to the FBI, “Taherzadeh offered to purchase a $2,000 assault rifle for a Secret Service agent assigned to protect first lady Jill Biden and told other government officials they could have access to what he claimed were official government vehicles.” Ali told witnesses that he has “connections to the Pakistani intelligence service ISI.”

According to prosecutors, “the pair had posed as special agents since at least February 2020 and offered a variety of gifts to Secret Service members and at least one Department of Homeland Security employee including rent-free apartments valued at $40,000 a year, iPhones, surveillance systems, a drone, a flat-screen television, a case for storing an assault rifle, a generator and other law enforcement paraphernalia.” The FBI found “a loaded Glock pistol, ammunition, components from disassembled guns and sniper equipment” along with “body armor, gas masks, zip ties, handcuffs, firearm storage cases, a drone, Department of Homeland Security patches and law enforcement clothing, DHS training manuals, surveillance equipment and a binder with a list of residents in the apartment complex.”

According to the Justice Department, “Ali and Taherzadeh ingratiated themselves with employees of the U.S. Secret Service because it provided them with cover and aided in their scheme.” The pair also tried to recruit at least one person to join what they claimed as an official DHS “task force.” The pair required that the recruit “be shot with an Airsoft rifle to evaluate their pain tolerance and reaction.” Prosecutors called Taherzadeh and Ali “a serious threat to the community” and “a potential risk to national security.”

Last August, Haider Ali was sentenced to 68 months in federal prison for his role in a “fraud conspiracy.”  Last December Arian Taherzadeh was sentenced to 33 months in prison for pretending to be a federal law enforcement officer to curry favor with members of the U.S. Secret Service.” The four suspended Secret Service agents were not named, which was also the case in another failure.

In 2011, gunman Oscar Ortega-Hernandez parked his car on Constitution Avenue, fired at least seven rounds at the White House with a semi-automatic rifle, and safely fled the scene. According to a CBS report, Secret Service agents responded to the sound of gunfire but were ordered to stand down. Secret Service bosses blamed the noise on construction equipment backfiring or a gang shoot-out.

The attack was not noticed until four days later when a housekeeper spotted broken glass and plaster around the Truman balcony. The president and First Lady blasted then-Secret Service director Mark Sullivan, but deputy national security advisor Antony Blinken told reporters “I know the Secret Service is on top of this and they will take every necessary step to correct any problems.”

Ortega-Hernandez was apprehended in Pennsylvania and in 2014 sentenced to 25 years in prison for terrorism and weapons offenses. That year Secret Service director Julia Pierson resigned in the wake of security breaches such as an armed man jumping the fence and gaining access to the White House. So Tony Blinken was wrong that the Secret Service would take every necessary step to correct the problems.  Jump ahead ten years and Blinken is Biden’s Secretary of State, a big fan of the letter proclaiming Hunter Biden’s laptop “Russian disinformation,” which he knows is untrue.

Joe Biden’s pick for Secret Service director is Kimberly Cheatle the veteran of “a long and distinguished career at the Secret Service.” Biden came to “trust her judgement and counsel” and Cheatle “was easily the best choice to lead the agency at a critical moment for the Secret Service.” Cheatle’s Secret Service failed to prevent Thomas Matthew Crooks from firing rifle shots that wounded Donald Trump and killed rally attendee Corey Comperatore, a firefighter and family man, and critically wounded David Dutch and James Copenhaver.

In May, House Oversight and Accountability chairman James Comer wrote to Cheatle about “potential vulnerabilities within the Secret Service preventing it from fulfilling its mission to ensure the safety and security of its protectees.” The committee has now launched an investigation into the attempted assassination of Donald Trump and requests Cheatle’s “voluntary appearance” at a hearing on July 22. As Trump likes to say, we’ll have to see what happens.

Lloyd Billingsley is the author of Yes I Con: United Fakes of America, Barack ‘Em Up: A Literary Investigation, Hollywood Party, and numerous other works.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Was Covering Up Biden’s Condition a Quarter Billion Dollar Fraud? - Daniel Greenfield


by Daniel Greenfield

The Biden campaign might be the single greatest act of financial fraud in history.


[Order Daniel Greenfield’s new book, Domestic Enemies: HERE.]

“Last month I co-hosted the single largest fund-raiser supporting any Democratic candidate ever, for President Biden’s re-election,” former ER actor George Clooney revealed in a New York Times op-ed calling for him to drop out. “It’s devastating to say it, but the Joe Biden I was with three weeks ago at the fund-raiser was not the Joe ‘big F-ing deal’ Biden of 2010. He wasn’t even the Joe Biden of 2020. He was the same man we all witnessed at the debate.” 

At the fundraiser, George Clooney called Biden a star instead of telling the truth about him. 

Did the movie star reveal his misgivings to any of those who contributed $30 million at the fundraiser? Or to those in his circle of acquaintances who would go on to attend other $2,500 a plate fundraisers for Biden in the Los Angeles area? Or did he keep quiet until now? 

According to Clooney, who also got Obama to sign off on his attack, “this isn’t only my opinion; this is the opinion of every senator and Congress member and governor who I’ve spoken with in private. Every single one, irrespective of what he or she is saying publicly.” 

That’s not just an indictment of Biden, but of Clooney, Obama and every Dem legislator who kept on raising millions for the presidential campaign of a candidate they knew was unfit. 

The Clooney fundraiser outraised the previous $26 million fundraiser by Stephen Colbert, whose presence on CBS’ fading late night show is an undisclosed contribution by Paramount to the Democrats. Colbert has now also suggested that Biden might want to step down. 

The two fundraisers were part of a much larger haul during which Biden raised $127 million last month with nearly a quarter of a billion dollars being held by his committees.  

Those fundraisers were based on what Democrats, including some of those involved in the fundraisers, have now admitted was a lie: that Biden was a viable presidential candidate. 

If even the partial haul of $264 million were treated as a fraud, it would be massive in scope. 

After Biden’s debate disaster, one Democrat insider after another has come forward to reveal that they knew about his state. Some of those covering up the fraud benefited materially from the Biden campaign while others used their connection to it to obtain status and influence. 

Certainly that would potentially apply to Joe Biden, to close Biden family members, allies and staffers as well as to a much larger circle of political operatives, consultants and donors who concealed the truth about his condition while encouraging donations to his political campaign.  

The question “what did the president know and when did he know it” may be only so applicable to Joe Biden whom Special Counsel Robert Hur deemed likely to get off in any criminal case on account of presenting himself as an elderly man with a poor memory, but those around him have no such defense. And those who are now coming forward to denounce Biden are also in some cases potentially exposing themselves to criminal liability for their role in the cover-up. 

If they had been selling a car, a house or pushing stock in a company that they knew was being fundamentally misrepresented as fit for its intended purpose, there would be a risk of liability. 

Viewed as a fraudulent enterprise, the Biden campaign, its associated committees, PACs and the larger Democrat Party is staggering in scope. It might even be the single greatest fraud in American history in which a tremendous number of people were also aware of the fraud. 

Former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau, who co-founded Fenway Strategies and served on the board of Let America Vote, claimed that, “It was not surprising to any of us who were at the fundraiser. I was there. Clooney was exactly right, and every single person I talked to at the fundraiser thought the same thing.” And Favreau made the decision to keep quiet about it. 

“I remember my wife, Emily, turned to me after the fundraiser and said, ‘What are we going to do?’ And I said, ‘Well, there is a debate in a week. Either he’ll do well in the debate, and we’ll think he was just tired because he flew all the way back from Europe, and that’ll be that, or he’ll be like this at the debate and then the whole country will be talking about it. So, here we are.” 

The decision by Democrats was to keep covering it up until it couldn’t be covered up anymore. 

Some Dems had invested heavily in Biden already and were treating it as a pyramid scheme that they had to try and keep going at all costs. If we believe the Democrat operatives, media figures and other insiders who keep regaling us with how they knew about Biden’s condition, then much of the party continued to raise money even while hiding information that would have dissuaded donors from continuing to contribute to the Biden presidential campaign. 

Since the debate, media reports describe donors refusing to donate or to take calls.   

“Disastrous.” NBC News quoted a source in the Biden campaign, reporting that “the money has absolutely shut off.” Sources claimed that donations from large donors were “down by possibly half” or even according to one “much more.” 

This establishes that donors would not have handed out the tens of millions that they did over the previous weeks, not to mention the much larger sums taken in during previous months, if they had been made aware of Biden’s true state. Democrat insiders knew of that. It is difficult then to see how hiding that information from donors while asking them to donate wasn’t fraud. 

There’s potential civil liability for recruiters, much as there can be in a pyramid scheme in which the recruiters are aware that the larger campaign is fraudulent, but there may also be criminal liability as well should state or federal authorities choose to pursue this question. 

Democrats are coming forward to accuse the Biden family of one of the largest frauds in history. But many, if not most of them, were aware of the fraud and chose to keep quiet for political, personal or financial reasons. Complicity in the quarter billion dollar fraud may be widespread. 

The question is whether state and federal authorities will impose consequences on those who fundraised, who benefited and who kept on lying as long as the millions kept rolling in.

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.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Human Rights Watch finds Hamas guilty of war crimes on Oct. 7 - David Isaac


by David Isaac

"We have further found that the killing of civilians and taking hostages were all central aims of the planned attack."


Kibbutz Be'eri after the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attack, Oct. 25, 2023. Photo by Edi Israel/Flash90.
Kibbutz Be'eri after the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attack, Oct. 25, 2023. Photo by Edi Israel/Flash90.

Human Rights Watch, an NGO better known for its anti-Israel positions, broke form on Wednesday to release a report documenting war crimes committed on Oct. 7.

The goal of the report, “Palestinian Armed Groups’ October 7 Assault on Israel,” was to record “the nature and extent” of humanitarian law violations committed by terrorists on that day, in which some 1,200 Israelis, most civilians, were killed and 251 taken hostage. 

“Palestinian armed groups committed a widespread attack directed against the civilian population, meeting the definition required for crimes against humanity,” said an HRW spokeswoman in a press briefing on Monday ahead of the report’s release.

“We have further found that the killing of civilians and taking hostages were all central aims of the planned attack, and not actions that occurred as an afterthought or as a plan gone awry, or as isolated acts, for example, perpetrated by unaffiliated Palestinians from Gaza,” the spokeswoman said.

It found that five terrorist groups took part: Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Fatah-associated Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

Human Rights Watch devoted a lengthy section in the document to its methodology. It said it conducted 144 mostly in-person interviews in Israel in October and November 2023. It interviewed others remotely, including 94 survivors and witnesses from the Oct. 7 assault.

It also talked to family members of victims and survivors, Gazans, foreign workers and Arab Israelis, which it referred to in its report as “Palestinian citizens of Israel.”

The NGO also verified more than 280 videos and photographs taken during or just after the Oct. 7 invasion. One of its researchers attended a screening of the 45-minute video that had been compiled by the Israeli government mainly using footage from Hamas GoPro cameras and cellphones.

Human Rights Watch underscored the efforts it made to independently verify material.

“To determine the location of each video and photograph, researchers matched landmarks with available satellite imagery, street-level photographs, or other visual material,” the report said.

“Where possible, Human Rights Watch used the position of the sun and any resulting shadows visible in videos and photographs to estimate the time the content was recorded at. Researchers also confirmed that each piece of content had not appeared online prior to October 7, using various reverse search image engines,” it added.

HRW said it didn’t make use of interrogation videos of captured terrorists by Israeli authorities, claiming the “inherent unreliability” of such videos.

All prisoners must be treated with dignity and not exposed to public curiosity, and such videos often use or encourage the use of torture or other forms of ill-treatment,” HRW said (italics in original).

In the interrogation videos released by the IDF, no signs of torture or physical abuse were evident as the terrorists offered up lurid details of their actions on Oct. 7, including murder and rape.

HRW included Hamas’s response to its summary findings, in which the terrorist group claimed it did not target civilians and blamed Israeli civilian casualties on Gazan civilians who rushed in and other groups not connected to its “military operation.”

“Human Rights Watch has found that based on the information presented in this report, the Hamas claim that on October 7 its forces did not seek to harm Israeli civilians is false,” the report said.

Given HRW’s history of criticizing Israel, including accusing it of apartheid and war crimes, the issuance of the report has raised suspicion in some quarters of the group’s motives.

Tokenism and manipulation

Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based research institute that keeps tabs on anti-Israel organizations and has for years documented HRW’s bias against Israel, said in response to the report, “This is an obvious example of HRW’s cynical tokenism and political manipulation using the facade of human rights.

“No one needs HRW to tell us about atrocities that were broadcast live more than nine months ago. This publication adds nothing of substance—instead it exploits the tragedies of the victims and hostages to score a few cheap points through blatantly false ‘balance’ with gullible donors, board members, and supporters,” he said.

The report does not suggest a change in direction for Human Rights Watch, which included in the report’s background section the following statement:

“Human Rights Watch has found that Israel’s prolonged closure of the Gaza Strip constitutes a form of collective punishment and is part of the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution that Israeli authorities are committing against Palestinians.”

And although HRW detailed its high-level verification efforts before accepting Israeli evidence of the Oct. 7 atrocities, it appeared to accept wholesale the casualty numbers put out by Hamas’s Gaza Health Ministry.

“Between October 7, 2023, and July 1, 2024, the hostilities resulted in at least 37,900 Palestinians killed, and 87,060 others injured, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry. That figure includes an unreported number of Palestinian armed group fighters,” it said in the background section.

“As UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres stated in December 2023, ‘International humanitarian law cannot be applied selectively. It is binding on all parties equally at all times, and the obligation to observe it does not depend on reciprocity.'”

David Isaac


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Tucker Carlson Reveals Biden Touting Unfettered "Immigration" - Sally Zahav


by Sally Zahav

The Origin of the "Great Replacement"


Sally Zahav


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Alternate Democratic presidential candidates perform better than Biden, new polling data shows - Nicholas Ballasy


by Nicholas Ballasy

The strongest potential Democratic presidential candidates in the poll were Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., Gov. Wes Moore, D-Md., Gov. Josh Shapiro, D-Pa. and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, D-Mich.


Alternate Democratic presidential candidates perform better than President Biden against former President Trump, according to new polling from BlueLabs Analytics of 15,000 voters in seven swing states.

The polling data is reportedly circulating among Democratic Party officials.

"Nearly every tested Democrat performs better than the President. This includes Vice President [KAMALA] HARRIS who runs better than the President (but behind the average alternative)," read a memo about the findings of the poll.

"Those more closely tied to the current administration perform relatively worse than other tested candidates," the memo also read.

The strongest potential Democratic presidential candidates in the poll were Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., Gov. Wes Moore, D-Md., Gov. Josh Shapiro, D-Pa. and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, D-Mich.

Those four Democrats outpaced Biden by about 5 percentage points across key swing states.

Nicholas Ballasy


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

U. Minnesota Dept. of Gender, Women, and Sexuality Studies: A Vile Fount of Jew Hatred - Sara Dogan


by Sara Dogan

Oct. 7 was about “Hamas fighters” who “brought down border fences.”


[Pre-order a copy of David Horowitz’s next book, America Betrayed, by clicking here. Orders will begin shipping on May 7th.]

Editor’s note: Since the barbaric Hamas attacks against Israel on October 7th, American universities have become an undeniable locus of Jew hatred within our nation. Much attention has deservedly been paid to the radical campus groups like Students for Justice in Palestine who call for the genocide of the Jews and cheer the terrorists of Hamas. What has received less attention—but should in fact rank as the universities’ worst offense—is the Jew hatred promoted by official departments and institutes of the universities themselves. In the case of our campuses, Jew hatred is “the call coming from inside the house.”

The Freedom Center is exposing these academic institutes and programs as “The Top Ten Jew-Hating Academic Departments” in a new report. We will be publishing one school per day as a series on Frontpage. The Department of Gender, Women, and Sexuality Studies at the University of Minnesota is #5 on our list.  

Just a glance at the website for the University of Minnesota Department of Gender, Women, and Sexuality Studies reveals it to be a highly politicized unit of the wider university, dedicated to progressive activism. The site declares that “As a place where research, education, and social change go hand in hand, GWSS identifies, analyzes, and challenges structural inequalities, while imagining and creating just and transformative futures for all.” Instead of searching for truth and knowledge, the Department openly acknowledges that its vision includes “social change,” “challeng[ing] structural inequalities,” and “creating just and transformative futures for all.”

So it should come as no surprise, that like much of the progressive left, the Department of Gender, Women, and Sexuality Studies (DGWSS) is a vile fount of Jew-hatred on the University of Minnesota campus.

Just six days after the brutal and barbaric Hamas attack on Israel, in which innocent civilians were brutalized and raped, parents killed in front of children, children killed in front of parents, bodies gleefully mutilated by terrorists on camera, DGWSS released a “Faculty Statement on Palestine” in which they described the massacre as “Hamas fighters” (not terrorists) who “brought down border fences.” The statement went on to demonize Israel and its defensive response to the worst attack in its history as “not self-defense but the continuation of a genocidal war against Gaza and against Palestinian freedom, self-determination, and life.”  The statement declared “We stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people and with Palestinian scholars and organizers.” DGWSS might as well have said, “We stand with Hamas.”

The statement goes on to make clear that the Department stands for Palestine, and only Palestine. “We strongly reject the media coverage that condemns ‘both sides,’ or seeks to tell a one-sided story of an unprovoked terrorist attack,” it states. “Israeli leaders are wielding a violent power that subjugates the Palestinian people and constructs them as dehumanized terrorists, upon whom any bloodshed can be meted out.”

Ironically, the Department even claims that its glorification of Hamas “fighters,” who raped and brutalized innocent Israeli women en mass, is a stance for feminism. “As scholars and solidarity workers who seek justice everywhere, we respond to the call of Palestinian feminists and Palestinian freedom fighters for transnational solidarity and assert that Palestine is a feminist issue,” claims the  statement. “None of us will be free unless the Palestinian people are free and Palestinian land is liberated.”

Unsurprisingly, the statement goes on to “reaffirm support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement,” a genocidal attempt to isolate and destroy the world’s only Jewish state.

At the very end of the lengthy diatribe against Israel, one sentence appears to apparently mediate the clear tension created by an academic department putting forth such a horrific and anti-Semitic tirade: “This statement reflects our individual views and we do not purport to speak for the University.”  This caveat is obviously a lie. Individual professors in the department could have put out a statement under their own auspices and promoted it on their personal social media accounts. Instead, DGWSS chose to place it prominently on the official department webpage of the University of Minnesota website, where it remains several months later, amended only by a brief note, added on November 20th, 2023, which states, in part, “This statement was written collectively by the tenured core faculty of the Department of Gender Women and Sexuality Studies. This statement does not reflect the position of the University of Minnesota.”  That legalistic note seems unlikely to reassure Jewish and Israeli students who are forced to take classes within the Department.

Largely in response to the DGWSS statement, the U.S. Department of Education is now conducting an investigation into whether the University of Minesota has violated federal anti-discrimination law due to anti-Semitism on campus.

The investigation was prompted by a letter sent to federal officials by former University of Minnesota regent Michael Hsu and law professor Richard Painter who argued, according to MPR News, that the DGWSS statement “is antisemitic because it condemns Israel while ‘justifying the terrorist attacks by Hamas.’”

“This is not about being pro-Palestinian,” Painter told MPR News. “This is about official statements of departments on websites paid for by the Minnesota taxpayers that justify the actions of Hamas.”

For its politicized use of official university resources to promote anti-Semitism and glorify Hamas, the University of Minnesota Department of Gender, Women, and Sexuality Studies belongs on the list of the worst Jew-hating academic departments in America.

Previous articles in series:

[1] ‘Jew-Hating’ Asian American Studies Program Exposed at Northwestern University.

[2] UIUC’s Department of Latino Studies Endorses ‘Jew Hatred’.

[3] U. Maryland Department of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies: A Case Study in ‘Jew Hatred’.

[4] University of Colorado-Boulder Ethnic Studies Department: Shilling for Hamas.

[5] UNC Center for Middle East and Islamic Studies: Celebrating October 7th.

Sara Dogan is the National Campus Director for the David Horowitz Freedom Center. She has written extensively on issues including academic freedom and anti-Semitism on campus.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

International 'Hostage Diplomacy': Kidnapping for Fun and Profit - Nima Gholam Ali Pour


by Nima Gholam Ali Pour

This blackmail essentially teaches rogue states that through violence and extortion they can get Western states to make concessions, massive payments, and to de-prioritize and deviate from international law.


  • That Iran can, through hostage-taking and extortion, force countries such as the United States, Belgium and Sweden to hand over a convicted criminal who has clearly violated international law shows that gangster methods, used by the Iranian mullahs and others, evidently carry more weight than international law.

  • This blackmail essentially teaches rogue states that through violence and extortion they can get Western states to make concessions, massive payments, and to de-prioritize and deviate from international law.

  • If a state takes foreign visitors hostage, and all power then lies with those who kidnap the most, threaten the most and have the largest capacity for violence -- including the imminent probability of nuclear weapons -- then international law will soon mean nothing.

  • Apart from effectively having a public budget to support terrorism, Iran's regime acts as lawlessly as the regimes of Russia or North Korea, and behaves in general as terrorists.

  • It seems clear that hostage diplomacy is a deliberate strategy for Iran and Russia's current regimes. Why should it not be? It works!

  • Countries in the West might do well to communicate this situation and disclaim responsibility for anyone who, despite that lawlessness, chooses to travel to Russia, Iran or other such states. Hostage diplomacy must be stopped.

On June 15, Iran and Sweden conducted a prisoner exchange. Two innocent Swedish citizens, Johan Floderus and Saeed Azizi, were exchanged for an Iranian citizen, Hamid Noury, who had been convicted by a Swedish court of the torture and mass execution of political prisoners he had committed in Iran. Pictured: Floderus (R) is greeted by Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson at Arlanda Airport near Stockholm, on June 15, 2024. (Photo by Tom Samuelsson/TT News Agency/AFP via Getty Images)

On June 15, the Swedish government announced that it had conducted a prisoner exchange with Iran's regime. An Iranian citizen, Hamid Noury, was exchanged for two Swedish citizens, Johan Floderus and Saeed Azizi.

Noury stood convicted by a Swedish court of the torture and mass execution of political prisoners he had committed in Iran's Gohardasht prison in the late 1980s, following a fatwa from Iran's then Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

In November 2019, Noury was lured to Sweden by some Iranians with promises of luxury trips, parties, and female companionship. At Arlanda Airport, Noury was met by Swedish police, and in July 2022, he was sentenced for his crimes to life imprisonment by the Stockholm District Court

As for the Swedish citizens, Johan Floderus, a European Union official, was arrested on April 17, 2022 while on vacation in Iran, and was accused of spying for Israel and spreading "corruption on earth." The prosecutor demanded that Floderus be sentenced to death.

The other Swedish citizen, Saeed Azizi, who had been diagnosed with cancer four years earlier, travelled to Iran, according to his account, to sell what he had inherited after his mother's death. When he landed in Tehran, he was placed under house arrest. After five weeks, in November 2023, he was formally arrested by the authorities, accused of having connections with the Swedish intelligence services, and sentenced to five years in prison.

The allegations against Floderus and Azizi are evidently baseless. Iran, however, had already shown that it is willing to execute foreign visitors on spurious charges. Another Swedish citizen, Habib Chaab, was abducted by Iranian regime agents in Turkey in 2020, smuggled into Iran, convicted of spreading "corruption on earth" and executed in May 2023. The specific accusations were that Chaab had, in collusion with Israel's Mossad and Swedish intelligence, ostensibly planned terrorist attacks against Iran.

Citizens from other European countries and the United States have also been affected by these arrests, now being called "hostage diplomacy". In September 2023, the US handed over $6 billion in frozen assets to Iran to conduct yet another prisoner exchange. Belgium carried out a similar prisoner exchange by releasing a terrorist back to Iran last year.

The governments of Sweden and other countries that have conducted such prisoner exchanges have found themselves in a dilemma. How can they not prioritize the lives and safety of their citizens -- especially when they are held hostage by a regime that has shown a willingness to execute foreigners? A government must prioritize the safety of its citizens. It is to be expected of all governments. Is a prisoner exchange or some form of agreement to get their citizens out of Iran the only option? The problem, of course, is that prisoner exchanges have serious consequences.

Hamid Noury, handed over to Iran in the prisoner exchange and welcomed in Tehran as a hero, had been convicted with adequate evidence of serious violations of international law: torture and mass executions. That Iran can, through hostage-taking and extortion, force countries such as the United States, Belgium and Sweden to hand over a convicted criminal who has clearly violated international law shows that gangster methods, used by the Iranian mullahs and others, evidently carry more weight than international law.

This blackmail essentially teaches rogue states that through violence and extortion they can get Western states to make concessions, massive payments, and to de-prioritize and deviate from international law.

If a state takes foreign visitors hostage, and all power then lies with those who kidnap the most, threaten the most and have the largest capacity for violence -- including the imminent probability of nuclear weapons -- then international law will soon mean nothing.

If rogue regimes are not held seriously accountable, Iran and similar states will in the future invest even more in hostage-taking, terrorism and other forms of malign behavior. They will see that fabricated prisoner exchanges pay off and lead to Western, democratic countries such as Sweden simply abandoning international law. Violence will be seen as the easy way to overtake rule-based world order.

These are just some of the consequences of Iran's prisoner exchanges with Sweden and other countries. If dictators see that through violent methods they can undermine international law, then why would they not continue to do so?

In the end, some of the blame lies with the "bait": the Swedish and other Western citizens who travel to the lawless countries such as Iran and give those regimes a strong position with which to be able to blackmail the West. Sweden and other democratic countries cannot in any way protect human rights if regimes such as Iran's can capriciously take foreigners hostage and use them for blackmail.

As long as citizens from Western democracies continue to travel to Iran, they put themselves in danger, as well as potentially eroding global security and international law.

Iran's Islamist regime, as well as others with similar practices, follow no international laws. Apart from effectively having a public budget to support terrorism, Iran's regime acts as lawlessly as the regimes of Russia or North Korea, and behaves in general as terrorists.

Regarding Iranians with dual citizenship from Sweden or other Western countries, who travel back to Iran, one wonders how they can go back there when many came to the West as refugees. Were they refugees in the first place? If the answer is yes, how can they then travel back to Iran? Have they been forgiven by the regime in Tehran? If so, why?

With people such as Floderus, the problem is probably atrocious judgment. After returning to Sweden, he proposed to his boyfriend. Congratulations, but didn't he know that in Iran they hang homosexuals from cranes (here, here and here)? How can one, as a gay man, go on vacation to Iran when homosexuality is a crime punishable by death there?

Should the Swedish government and other countries protect themselves and their citizens by issuing travel advisories, or warning citizens that if they travel to such countries they are on their own -- their government will not be able to help them? Or should travel to such countries be banned altogether? What is the trade-off for what might be called a violation of their civil liberties?

More Western countries might need to understand that their citizens travelling to countries such as Iran, which engages in hostage diplomacy, is not sustainable. It gives countries that use such blackmail too much of an advantage to exploit the West and possibly even affect foreign policy.

Right now, the European Union is moving towards designating Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization. How many hostages could Iran take to stop this process? It seems clear that hostage diplomacy is a deliberate strategy for Iran and Russia's current regimes. Why should it not be? It works!

Countries in the West might do well to communicate this situation and disclaim responsibility for anyone who, despite that lawlessness, chooses to travel to Russia, Iran or other such states. Hostage diplomacy must be stopped.

Nima Gholam Ali Pour is a Member of Parliament in the Swedish Riksdag.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Remarkable Story of Yaron Avraham - Hugh Fitzgerald


by Hugh Fitzgerald

From Muslim to Jew.


[Order David Horowitz’s new book, America Betrayed, HERE.]

Yaron Avraham was born into a Muslim Arab family in Lod, Israel. His family was not only Muslim, but affiliated with the Islamic Movement in Israel — that is, the Muslim Brotherhood. He is now a religious Jew, with a Jewish wife and four Jewish children. He lives in Jerusalem. And he is about to open a restaurant. Will he be paid a visit by Muslims determined to punish him for his conversion? Nothing, he says, can frighten him anymore. Growing up as a Muslim, he became inured to death. The astonishing tale of his moral trajectory can be found here: “Gaza mosques to Jerusalem synagogues: A radical Islamist’s journey to Judaism,” by Ohad Merlin, Jerusalem Post, June 12, 2024:

“I’m sorry for all the mess, I’ve been busy with setting up my new restaurant, a dream come true,” said Yaron Avraham, 46, smiling apologetically while talking to The Jerusalem Post. Almost nothing in the appearance of Avraham, a religious Jew, can provide any hint of his past life and horrible childhood experiences.

Avraham was born in Lod to a radical family affiliated with the Islamic Movement in Israel, the 12th child in a household of 18. “We usually start observing some of the Muslim commandments at the age of seven. This is when I was sent to mosques for the first time, aspiring to be a religious and pious man. I would wake up at 5:30 a.m.,” he remembered.

However, growing up in a poverty-stricken neighborhood, he was also exposed to crime at a very young age. “I remember finishing my studies around 3 p.m., finding myself walking around with a backpack full of drugs to distribute between addresses I got.”

Drug trafficking was not the only type of crime he was exposed to. “In our culture, family honor is of the highest importance. It is not a religious matter but a cultural one, with the value of preserving the honor of the family sometimes even bypassing some religious commandments, especially when it comes to women, something the Western world would find difficult to grasp,” he explained.

“Women must uphold the ‘honor of the family’ by essentially obeying everything the men tell them, including how and when to leave the house, how to dress, whether to open a bank account and get a driver’s license, etc.,” he said.

“I had an older sister, Sarah. She was in 11th grade, around 17-18 years old, when I was nine. My older brother, a cruel and merciless drug dealer, yet pious in his way of life, approached Sarah one day and informed her that she was not allowed to leave the house without his consent. Not to meet friends, not to go to school – she had to get his permission for everything.

“But Sarah was not ready to listen. She had dreams and hopes and wanted to do everything that girls her age did, so she stood her ground. My brother did not like that, and soon Sarah was subject to recurring, terrible violence from him and two of the other older brothers.

“After three months of violence and torture, the older brother approached Sarah again and told her that he allowed her, in all his ‘kindness,’ to go out to work, but only if she dressed modestly and returned home at a set curfew of 5 p.m. There would be no talking to men, no going out, not anything else, just from work, home, and back.

“Sarah would sometimes come home late by a few minutes and had to face beatings and violence again. One evening she returned very late, around 8:30 p.m. She was ‘interrogated’ by my brothers and she admitted that she had gone for a walk in the mall.

“My oldest brother determined straight away that she had crossed a red line and disgraced the family’s honor. This is an unpardonable offense for which only one punishment exists.

“Around 10-10:30 p.m., the older brothers dragged all of us to our rooms and locked us in them, while Sarah was locked in another one. We heard terrible beatings and screams from the room next door, and it kept on going like that for hours.

At around 12:30 a.m., we started hearing the most horrible screams I have ever heard, of Sarah begging for her life. These terrible screams were the last 15 seconds of her life; the three brothers had slaughtered her there.

“I can hear her screams in my ear to this day, though it’s been 37 years. This is not something I can ever forget, a sister who screams and begs for her life – and then complete silence.

“During the night the body disappeared and no one knows where she is buried. For some reason she is still defined as ‘missing’ by the authorities,” Avraham added somberly.

“The doors were opened soon but we didn’t dare to leave our rooms. I left around 6:30 a.m. and saw that the room where everything happened was clean with barely a trace of anything.

“I saw my mother sitting in the yard, her eyes red, crying. She was sad and nervous and I asked what happened to my sister. My brothers who murdered my sister were also sitting there, smoking and laughing. It was as if death and killing were just a normal thing.”

Stranded in Gaza

For the culprit brothers, Avraham’s questions were was a red flag. “They thought I would endanger them so they had to get rid of me. Three days later they forcibly dragged me to the car and I found myself abandoned in a mosque in Gaza.”

Avraham stayed in that mosque, which had a sort of boarding school, for more than five years. “It was a difficult time for me. It was a cruel education on the path to being a martyr. I see it as a defense mechanism to confront the fear of death, while looking fear in the eyes.

“They made me experience death and find the ‘thrill’ in it. We were taken to participate in funerals of so-called shaheeds. Imagine this: Children are made to walk past the corpses of those alleged martyrs, kiss their hands or feet, depending on what’s left of them. Lots of brainwashing about heaven, hell, the afterlife.

“I managed to study the Quran by heart. At the age of 12.5, there came a stage where, according to them, I now rose to a higher level and should continue the mission to fight the Jews. By the way, this fight was never related to an occupation. This war is religious. To this day, when I am asked when there’ll be peace, my answer is always: ‘When the last Jew stops breathing,’” he added somberly.

“The most cruel experience I remember was at the age of 14, when we were taken to a cemetery in the center of Gaza, near a military base, each of us had to go down and lie in a grave with our eyes closed while other kids were reading verses of the Quran over us, so that we could feel the so-called ‘ascension of the soul.’

“I also remembered how kids paid with their lives for various offenses, including the execution of two of my colleagues, aged 13 and 15, who were beheaded following accusations that they had sexual relations.

“Death was just such a central part of life and life there has almost no value. What we were taught to fear was not death, rather life itself,” Avraham explained….

Be sure to read the rest. I told you at the beginning that Yaron Avraham’s story was astonishing. The violence of his Muslim home life. Hs brothers and their “honor” killing of their sister Sarah because she dared to take a walk in a mall, window-shopping, for a few hours. The cult of death at the mosque in Gaza where he remained trapped for five years. The kindness of so many Jewish strangers, from Uzi Sadeh to Benny Begin to his IDF commander, to his ultra-Orthodox friend Yaron, whose first name he took as his own. His volunteering for the IDF’s Givati brigade. Finally, his conversion to Judaism. Should you be in Jerusalem, go to the Bar Baguette, that will soon be up and running, and check out the amazing Yaron Avraham. You won’t be disappointed.

Hugh Fitzgerald


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Tuesday, July 16, 2024

The Power of Courage - Christopher Roach


by Christopher Roach

Inches from death, Trump’s mind remained on his mission, and he was conscious of the way the images of him would affect the campaign. This kind of physical courage cannot be faked.



The iconic photo of Donald Trump standing tall and defiantly after an attempted assassination speaks volumes. It reminds the whole world that Trump is a fighter. In his case, it is more than a metaphor, as “fighter” is for most of the political class. He showed real physical courage, and this cannot fail to impress.

As society has gotten more modern and organized, physical courage has become less necessary and less valued. Physical ability in general, such as the brawn and endurance required to be a cowboy or coal miner, doesn’t have much to do with the ability to analyze Excel spreadsheets, run a cash register, or do any number of office jobs. Softer skills are in higher demand and are rewarded accordingly.

We are a wealthy and safe society, but also an antiseptic and, in some ways, inhuman one. Our nature does best with purpose and hardship. The modern quest for comfortable self-preservation is a philosophy of life fit only for an amoeba.

The overreaction to COVID in particular was a testament to the recent, feminized obsession with safety, which downplays the value of risk-taking and enjoying life. When the virus arrived, the people in charge reminded us that they think we’re merely vulnerable and stupid toddlers. At the same time, they showed us that they themselves are cowards in the face of risk, willing to destroy the economy, religious freedoms, and our health in an impossible quest to eliminate a highly communicable disease. Schoolmarms like former CDC head Rochelle Walensky and weasels like Anthony Fauci became avatars of our decadent, dishonest, and cowardly ruling class.

While physical courage never fails to impress, during difficult times, the esteem of physical courage particularly reasserts itself. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, firemen and other first responders were back in style, displacing the wealthy and well-dressed “masters of the universe” on Wall Street. When the Twin Towers were burning, the order of things became inverted, and now brave working-class men willing to walk into burning buildings were calling the shots and saving the office workers.

This is also the reason, particularly in the era of the all-volunteer military, that our service members have always been held in high regard. Their value does not depend so much on the use to which they are put. Americans have fierce disagreements and a lot of criticism of our foreign policy. But the willingness to risk one’s life over and over again is something that onlookers admire, not least because this is a risk pursued voluntarily.

Trump’s courage extends beyond the moment caught on camera. His candidacy and post-presidency all exemplify, if not physical, then moral courage, including high levels of commitment and resilience. If other politicians come into office poor and leave wealthy, Trump’s experience has been quite the opposite.

By becoming president, he has lost a lot of money and been subject to constant attack, beginning with illegal FBI surveillance of him during his campaign in 2016, the hounding and stress of false Russian collusion allegations, insubordination by senior military and civilian leaders, and two impeachments. Not merely taking a financial loss, he has endured lawfare on a grand scale, including scurrilous attacks on his reputation, a baseless civil judgment against his businesses, and four simultaneous criminal prosecutions.

Even under this degree of pressure and attack, Trump did not quit and did not waver. In times of stress, he remains cognizant that his reactions are part of a broader performance. Such self-consciousness about the performative aspect of one’s actions and reactions is, in fact, an important part of leadership. That is to say, a leader must be aware of his reactions to events and how his supporters’ morale will be affected by such reactions. Trump could have gone passively with the Secret Service, ducked on his own, or panicked. Instead, he demanded to walk out under his own power and shook his fist defiantly, blood streaming down his face, yelling, “Fight! Fight! Fight!”

His supporters, understandably rattled by the incident, cheered wildly. So did his many millions of supporters around the country. It was all very in character, turning a disturbing lapse of security into a demonstration of great physical courage under fire, literally.

Trump’s reaction to the shooting reminded me of documentary footage I saw a long time ago, back when the History Channel actually taught history, involving France’s larger-than-life 20th century leader, Charles de Gaulle. It was important for de Gaulle that his Free French Forces be the tip of the spear for the allied liberation of Paris. The Supreme Allied Commander, General Eisenhower, with his strategic and diplomatic acumen, agreed to this request.

The Free French Forces ended up capturing Paris so quickly after the breakout from the Normandy Beachhead that a handful of German forces and Vichy collaborators remained in the city. During an impromptu victory parade, de Gaulle and the crowd were subject to shots from snipers. When everyone else ducked, ran for cover, or cowered, de Gaulle stood tall, not even so much as flinching. He went on to become a popular and polarizing leader of postwar France.

In our highly regulated and rationalistic age, we sometimes forget the importance of emotions and the primitive gestures that have demonstrated leadership ability (or its absence) since time immemorial. Even today, the best leaders remain sensible of this type of language that communicates powerfully and without words.

Trump is a master of the show and a man of masculine instinct in the age of the verbose blockhead. Inches from death, Trump’s mind remained on his mission, and he was conscious of the way the images of him would affect the campaign. This kind of physical courage cannot be faked, and for a campaign that was already doing well, it now appears unstoppable.


Christopher Roach is an adjunct fellow of the Center for American Greatness and an attorney in private practice based in Florida. He is a double graduate of the University of Chicago and has previously been published by The Federalist, Takimag, Chronicles, the Washington Legal Foundation, the Marine Corps Gazette, and the Orlando Sentinel. The views presented are solely his own.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Top police group blasts Secret Service for blaming local cops for Trump assassination attempt - John Solomon


by John Solomon

FOP warns criticism will be counterproductive, especially with so many campaign events that will require local, state and federal officials to cooperate.


The nation’s largest police group on Monday night blasted the Secret Service for trying to shift blame for the weekend assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump in Butler, Pa., to local police.

“Whatever happened in Butler, this was not a failure of the local, state, or federal officers on the ground who responded to the shots fired at former President Trump, they acted heroically and put their lives on the line to protect everyone else at the event. We must recognize that,” Fraternal Order of Police President Patrick Yoes said. “This is a failure at the management or command level who failed to secure an obvious weakness in the security of this event.”

Yoes warned that Secret Service efforts to push blame down to local police for failing to secure a building rooftop used by the shooter would be counterproductive, especially with so many campaign events ahead in the election that will require local, state and federal officials to cooperate. 
The Secret Service “will need to rely on State and local law enforcement to ensure the protection mission is successful,” Yoes said. “Yet, in the wake of some of the anonymous comments from unknown officials, state and local agencies may wonder if they can rely on the Secret Service.
“I am concerned that anonymous statements or media speculation could have a chilling effect on the ability of Federal, State, and local law enforcement to work together through what will certainly be a grueling campaign,” Yoes added. 
The FOP is the largest police organization in the United States, with 373,000 members in more than 2,200 lodges.
A Secret Service spokesperson was quoted by media outlets as saying the agency did not check the roof of the building where the shooter took aim, and that local law enforcement was tasked with sweeping and guarding the building.
Yoes said Secret Service is responsible for ensuring the president and presidential nominees are fully protected. 
“While reports and information is still being gathered and developed, a man was able to obtain a shooting perch with line of sight to former President Trump, a protectee of the United States Secret Service,” he said.
“It is the primary function of the USSS to provide for the protection and security on sites like the one in Butler, Pennsylvania. In order to carry out this law enforcement mission, the safety and security of the protectee, the USSS relies on the support and assistance of local law enforcement,” he added. “While these local officers do not all have specialized training in individual protection, they are fully capable of assisting at these large events, whomever the protectee may be.”

John Solomon


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Seismic shift for Trump in 2024 race as Democrats’ rhetoric, presidential debate, lawfare backfire - Natalia Mittelstadt


by Natalia Mittelstadt

Following the shooting, both Elon Musk and former Obama supporter Bill Ackman announced their endorsements of Trump.


A seismic shift has occurred in the 2024 presidential race as the Democrats’ rhetoric, debate performance, and persistent lawfare against former President Donald Trump have appeared to backfire on them, with support for him continuing to increase, including after the assassination attempt.

Trump has been called a “threat to democracy” by Democrats, charged with numerous felony counts in federal and state cases, debated President Joe Biden with CNN moderators, and survived an assassination attempt, all of which have appeared to backfire on Democrats in the presidential race and increase the former president's popularity as he runs to return to the White House.

Trump was shot at in an assassination attempt on Saturday during a campaign rally in Butler, Pa., where a bullet grazed his right ear. One rally attendee, firefighter Corey Comperatore, was killed during the shooting and two others were injured.

Following the shooting, both Elon Musk and former Obama supporter Bill Ackman announced their endorsements of Trump.

Both Biden and former President Barack Obama condemned political violence and wished Trump well after the assassination attempt.

Daily Wire podcast host Matt Walsh posted on the social media platform X on Sunday, “The calls to replace Biden will stop now. No Democrat can beat Trump. They’d rather have Biden lose to him than waste one of their up and coming stars on a fool’s errand. Biden’s job now is to lose, absorb all the blame, then shuffle off to the nursing home and disappear.”

While Democrats have attempted to hurt Trump’s chances of regaining the White House, they appear only to help the former president.

Heated rhetoric

Democrats have repeatedly used heated rhetoric and imagery regarding Trump, including in the days leading up to the attempted assassination.

Biden told donors in a call last Monday that it was “time to put Trump in a bullseye.”

"I have one job and that's to beat Donald Trump," Biden said. "I’m absolutely certain I’m the best person to be able to do that. So, we’re done talking about the debate, it’s time to put Trump in a bullseye."

In an NBC News interview aired Monday, Biden was asked about his “bullseye” comment, as well as his statement that Trump is “an existential threat” during the same call. Biden clarified his comments, saying that by “bullseye,” he meant to “focus on” Trump.

“It was a mistake to use the word – I didn't say ‘crosshairs,’ I meant ‘bullseye.’ I meant focus on him, focus on what he’s doing, focus on his policies, focus on the number of lies he told in the debate,” Biden said.

“How do you talk about the threat to democracy, which is real, when a president says things like he says? Do you just not say anything because it may incite somebody?” he later added.

On Sunday, Donald Trump, Jr., posted screenshots of two posts on the social media platform X from Biden’s account, including one from the day after the debate in June, which reads, “Donald Trump is a genuine threat to this nation. He’s a threat to our freedom. He’s a threat to our democracy. He’s literally a threat to everything America stands for.”

The son of the former president captioned his post, “Don't tell me they didn't know exactly what they were doing with this crap. Calling my dad a ‘dictator’ and a ‘threat to Democracy’ wasn't some one off comment. It has been the *MAIN MESSAGE* of the Biden-Kamala campaign and Democrats across the country!!!”

In 2018, referencing the “Access Hollywood” video of Trump, Biden said, “They asked me would I like to debate this gentleman, and I said no. I said, ‘If we were in high school, I’d take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him.’”

Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, who Trump announced as his running mate on Monday, posted on X after the assassination attempt on Saturday, “Today is not just some isolated incident. The central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs. That rhetoric led directly to President Trump's attempted assassination.”

Presidential debate

Ahead of the CNN presidential debate between Biden and Trump, the former president said he accepted the debate, despite the terms being disadvantageous, because he believed the network thought he would not accept.

“You know, they offered me this debate and they thought I wouldn't take it because it's on CNN. It's Fake Tapper, does anyone know Fake Tapper?” Trump said at a town hall event in Arizona earlier this month. “And I said I'll take it, I'll take it -- because you know what? They thought I wouldn't take it, being on CNN and Dana Bash is very tough to Trump.”

“So I said, I'll take it. They thought what was gonna happen is that I'd say I won't do it, and then they'll say, ‘Trump doesn't want a debate.’ I want a debate,” he insisted. “We should have many debates, frankly.”

The CNN presidential debate saw Biden draw considerable scrutiny from both sides of the aisle over his frequent mumblings, lengthy stares, and often vacant expressions, which collectively renewed concerns over his physical and mental fitness for office.

Following the debate, a CNN poll found that 67% of debate watchers said Trump outperformed Biden, compared to 33% who said Biden outperformed Trump.

The poll also found that 59% of respondents had “no real confidence” in Biden’s “ability to lead the country,” while 44% said the same about Trump. After Biden's performance, many Democrats called for Biden to drop out of the presidential race. As of Friday, 18 congressional Democrats had said the president should end his reelection effort. Despite the calls to drop out, Biden has repeatedly asserted that he will stay in the race.

Prior to the assassination attempt on Saturday, Trump was leading Biden in the RealClearPolitics Poll Average by 2.7 points.


On Monday, federal Southern District of Florida Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed special counsel Jack Smith’s case against Trump over the classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago.

The judge ruled that no federal statute cited by the Justice Department authorized the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith by the Attorney General, meaning he has no authority to prosecute the case. 

Following the dismissal of the classified documents case in Florida, FBI whistleblower Kyle Seraphin posted on the social media platform X, “This isn't over... but yet another of the Leftist snares has snapped shut without catching their prey. @realDonaldTrump is probably the most attacked man in history, and that was even before someone tried to kill him this weekend.”

Smith’s separate case against Trump in Washington, D.C., where the former president has been charged with four counts related to his conduct on January 6, had already been delayed indefinitely pending an appeal to the Supreme Court on presidential immunity grounds.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’s case is currently on pause.

Meanwhile, on July 2, the sentencing in the “hush money” trial brought against Trump by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg was delayed until Sept. 18, after initially being set for July 11, four days before the start of the Republican National Convention.

Following Trump’s conviction of 34 felony counts in the “hush money” trial in May, his campaign website crashed, due largely to the volume of attempted donations, the campaign confirmed. The Trump campaign announced the next day that it had raised $34.8 million in small-dollar donations, but later updated the total to $52.8 million. 

Sequoia Capital partner Shaun Maguire donated $300,000 to Trump’s presidential campaign after the verdict, but he wasn’t the only Silicon Valley mogul to donate to the former president’s reelection effort. A week after the conviction, a San Francisco fundraising event with over 100 attendees raised $12 million for Trump. Donors repeatedly cited the “lawfare” against Trump as being a reason for their support for him.

Natalia Mittelstadt


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter