COMMENTARY / OPINION
Is THIS Trump’s REAL reason for allowing 600k Chinese students into America? [10:12] Glenn Beck
August 16, 2025 -Why would President Trump allow China to send 600,000 students to the United States with China’s history of using students as spies? There has to be more to this story! Investigative journalist and author Peter Schweizer joins Glenn Beck to explain what he believes is really going on. Plus, he gives an update on the “massive problem” of China buying up land next to US military bases.
The Eternal Palestinian Refugees – An Endless List That Must Come to an End! by Anat Berko
August 26, 2025 Special to IPT
If we want a resolution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians then the first step must be to take the so-called “right of return” off the table.
We must begin having citizenship granted to the so-called “Palestinian refugees” who have been living stateless in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan for decades, thereby ending their hereditary refugee status. These three countries are in desperate need of assistance and recognition from the United States and the West in general, and they must be prevailed upon to contribute their share by doing what every other country in the world has done over the years—grant citizenship to the Palestinian refugees who already live within their borders. Needless to say, this is a population that is culturally and religiously close to these states: a Muslim, Arabic-speaking population with almost identical cultural characteristics.
Background on the origins of the Palestinian refugee issue:
Since 2007, Gaza has effectively been a Palestinian state—an Islamist emirate—ruled by the Hamas terrorist organization, with a recognized international border with Israel as well as a border and border crossings with Egypt, which controlled Gaza until the Six-Day War in 1967. After Hamas’s invasion and genocide on October 7, it became clear that this model of a ground incursion—slaughter, rape, and the murder of Israeli civilians by Islamist terrorists—could be replicated in many places in the West as well against the majority Christian population, using Islamist enclaves as safe havens for raiders.
In Gaza, as in Judea and Samaria (West Bank), Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, Palestinians still defined as refugees are now in their fifth generation—77 years after the establishment of the State of Israel. The only Arab state that has partially naturalized Palestinians is Jordan. Mahmoud Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority, holds Jordanian citizenship and owns a luxury home there, yet still calls himself a refugee from Safed, in northern Israel. Palestinians as a whole rely on U.N. and donor-country aid to preserve their refugee status, while Arab states and other actors who wish to perpetuate the conflict with Israel treat them as a political bargaining chip against the only Jewish state. It is worth noting that Arabs who remained in Israel when seven Arab states launched their attack at the very moment of its reestablishment in 1948 live today as full citizens in democratic Israel. Arab Israelis, who make up 21 percent of the population, enjoy equal rights and citizenship and experience a level of prosperity unmatched by Arabs elsewhere in the Middle East.
At the same time, when the State of Israel was founded, Jews were expelled from Arab countries where they had lived for hundreds of years, stripped of their citizenship and property, and subjected to pogroms. In effect, since Israel’s establishment there was an exchange of populations: most Jews from Arab countries fled and came to help build the newly founded State of Israel, while many Arabs (not yet called “Palestinians” at the time) fleeing the war left for Arab countries.
The Real Refugees Are Actually the Jews
A good example is my own family. My parents and their relatives—who knew that they needed to leave Iraq after the Farhud pogrom of 1941—fled to Israel in 1949-1950.
Until 1948, about 900,000 Jews lived in Arab and Muslim countries—Morocco, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Tunisia, Algeria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran and more. They suffered persecution, threats to their lives, antisemitic harassment, confiscation of property, laws restricting movement and speech, anti-Jewish legislation, and even the stripping of citizenship. Since Israel’s founding, the Islamic world has effectively become Judenrein, and its ancient Jewish communities destroyed. These Jews were never recognized by the U.N. or anyone else as refugees. My family shed the mantle of refugeehood, built full lives in Israel, raised six children, and educated us to work hard and be productive citizens of the young state. Life was hard—many lived in tent camps under harsh conditions—but they kept their heads down, learned Hebrew, found work, and raised their children on the right path.
By contrast, Palestinian refugees are “eternal” refugees with a special privilege, passing their status on by inheritance. There has been no resettlement and no giving up the refugee label. This is the only refugee population for which the U.N. created a special agency—UNRWA—in 1949 as a “temporary” measure, which became permanent and a source of disincentive to resettle and shed their refugee status. Other refugees worldwide do not receive such privileges—they are handled by UNHCR, under a very narrow definition of refugee status that is not hereditary.
Only among Palestinians is refugeehood passed down from generation to generation, their numbers continuing to grow, even if they obtain citizenship elsewhere. This means that even an American citizen can be counted as a Palestinian refugee. A case in point: U.S. Muslim millionaire Mohamed Hadid, father of five—including famous fashion models—is classified under UNRWA as a Palestinian refugee. Hadid was born in Nazareth in November 1948, months after Israel’s founding, during the War of Independence. His family moved to Lebanon, then to Syria, and finally settled in the U.S. This is an example of the absurdity in the definition of Palestinian refugeehood.
If we truly want to change the status quo, we must start with the total dismantling of UNRWA, which has become a platform for the death industry in the service of Hamas—a murderous terrorist group in the Muslim Brotherhood tradition. In some cases Hamas even infiltrated terrorists into UNRWA’s workforce. UNRWA’s schools have included antisemitic materials that poison young Palestinian minds, and its facilities are used for terrorism. President Trump understood this during his first term. Unfortunately, Israeli leadership was shortsighted, viewing UNRWA as a convenient arrangement that “took care of the Palestinians,” without realizing that this had freed Palestinian terrorist groups to invest vast resources in their diversified terror industry since the founding of the PLO.
By way of reminder, here is just a partial list of the “contributions” Palestinian terrorism has made to the world: airline hijackings, suicide bombings, beheadings, raping, human trafficking and kidnappings, car-ramming attacks, stabbings, and the slaughter of civilians with knives, among others. The U.N. as a whole has not only lost its relevancy, but has become an organization that serves the interest of terrorist groups.—an issue that deserves its own separate discussion.
As Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism has pointed out numerous times, the U.N. has actually become an agent of terrorism. “The hideous role of UNRWA officials in carrying out rape, murder and kidnappings in the Hamas organized attacks on Israel on October 7 is unprecedented. But hopefully we might see a jury in the U.S. finally apportion long awaited blame on UNWRA and its U.S. based partner in crime, UNWRA USA. A new superseding lawsuit is about to be filed by Richard Heidemann and various co-counsel that spells out in horrific detail the atrocities carried out by UNWRA on October 7—atrocities made possible by the blood money of the U.N. and various charitable entities such as UNWRA USA.”
President Trump, who does not shy away from his responsibilities or leadership, has proven himself able to act for the benefit of America and the entire free world. He demonstrated this by joining Israel’s fight against Iran and leading U.S. strikes on the Shiite theocracy’s nuclear facilities, which threaten the whole world.
Therefore, to reduce the existential conflict between Israel and the Palestinians to manageable proportions, we must remove the “zero-sum equation” in which Palestinians say they want their own state but also demand “return”—meaning settling their people inside Israel, a country smaller than New Jersey. In other words, Palestinians do not want a state next to Israel, but instead of Israel, aiming to eliminate the world’s only Jewish, Hebrew-speaking state.
As I mentioned, breaking the so-called “eternal refugee” paradigm requires insisting that Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan grant citizenship to all Palestinians who have long been living within their borders. This will begin the process to end the cycle of eternal refugeehood and the demographic destruction that Palestinians teach their children to aspire to.
When Israel was founded, it absorbed Holocaust survivors—real refugees—from Europe and Jewish refugees from Arab countries. Now it is the turn of chaotic Arab states, which have bred death and terrorism within their borders, to naturalize their fellow Muslim, culturally similar Palestinians who live among them. This would be the first step toward a realistic, genuine solution to the Palestinian problem—not the synthetic, meaningless format promoted by weak European leaders intimidated by Islamist immigrants with voting rights who threaten Europe’s democratic character.
By perpetuating the “right of return,” Palestinians shift from the murderous barbarity seen in the October 7, 2023, genocide of Israelis, to a posture of eternal victimhood—perpetuating misery and refugeehood. Palestinians must also take their fate into their own hands. The terrorism they carry out is no different from that of ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, or Tahrir al-Sham. One day the world will not be able to ignore it, because terrorism eats away at the living flesh everywhere, led by Islamists from the Muslim Brotherhood and Shiite Iran. The Gulf states and Egypt have long understood this, outlawing the Muslim Brotherhood and banning Al Jazeera, the Qatari Islamist propaganda channel, from broadcasting on their soil.
The time has come for change, and President Trump—with his confident leadership and grip on reality—is the person who can make it happen.
Dr. Lt. Col. (Ret.) Anat Berko is a world-renowned expert on terrorism and policy maker. Berko is a former member of the Israeli Knesset and Lieutenant Colonel (ret.), Israel Defense Forces. She has lectured on counterterrorism for NATO and before the U.S. Congress, State Dept., FBI, and armed forces, as well as at many universities throughout the U.S. and abroad. A sought-after commentator, Anat appears frequently in the international media to provide professional insight about terrorist attacks throughout the world.
She is the author of two books, “The Path to Paradise,” and “The Smarter Bomb: Women and Children as Suicide Bombers” (Rowman & Littlefield), and numerous articles on terrorism and government policy in confronting terror.
President talks tough, but Russia-Ukraine war foreshadows big problems ahead for U.S…. And whatever happened to those 100,000 military-age males who entered U.S. illegally under Biden?
AUG 26, 2025
Retired U.S. Army Lt. Colonel Daniel Davis, a senior fellow at Defense Priorities and a military expert, penned a must-read article this week on the historic changes taking place in modern warfare, and how the U.S. is unprepared for it.
Earlier this year, speaking at a press conference in Qatar, President Donald Trump categorically declared that “nobody can beat us. We have the strongest military in the world, by far. Not China, not Russia, not anybody!”
Trump is a great salesman and a big talker.
Lt. Colonel Davis, in an article for Military.com, throws cold water on the president’s bravado. He writes:
“We do have a strong military, but we are woefully unprepared to fight a modern war. That’s because, despite all of the major technological advances in warfighting in recent years, manpower is still absolutely critical, and understanding how those boots on the ground interact with emerging drone warfare is still in its infancy in the U.S. military.”
Davis reminds us that ground warfare has evolved over the past three and a half years since Russia invaded Ukraine, adding:
“I’ve spent considerable time studying this conflict from strategic, operational and tactical angles, and I’ve conducted multiple interviews with combatants on both the Russian and Ukrainian sides. The picture that emerges explains not only why Russia’s progress is slow and Ukraine is gradually losing ground, but also why the U.S. would face serious challenges if forced into a similar fight today.”
Davis notes that some analysts have argued that Russia has failed to completely conquer Ukraine because Russian generals and soldiers are not up to par.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Davis says that such ignorant conclusions ignore the game-changing nature of drones on the conduct of modern land warfare.
Despite all the talk about advanced weapons, the Russia-Ukraine war has proven that it’s only the widespread deployment of drones that has fundamentally altered the nature of modern war.
Davis explains that armored vehicles remain essential for transporting infantry to the front lines, but they can’t move in large numbers without suffering catastrophic losses.
“Traditional armored charges, such as the type I participated in during Desert Storm’s Battle of 73 Easting, are deadly in today’s battlefield conditions. Russia has increasingly turned to motorcycles to improve frontline mobility, not because they offer protection, but because their speed and maneuverability improve their chances of defeating drone attacks. No armored vehicle can dodge an FPV or fiber optic-guided drone, but a motorcycle might.”
As a result, Davis notes that every inch of ground in modern war is contested: by various types of drones, artillery strikes, missiles, rockets, air attacks, armored vehicle cannons, and infantry attacks. Both sides in the Russia-Ukraine War have suffered high vehicle losses.
He writes:
“Fighters from both Russia and Ukraine have told me that stepping out of a trench, for any reason, even to eat or relieve themselves, is extraordinarily dangerous.”
Trump invites 600,000 Chinese students to attend U.S. universities
While we are unprepared to fight abroad, the even bigger threat is here at home, where the enemy within just got a huge vote of confidence from the sitting U.S. president.
President Trump says he will admit up to 600,000 Chinese students into U.S. universities, more than double the current 270,000. He made the announcement during a press briefing on Monday.
So much for “America first.”
He called it a “strategic move” to strengthen trade with China and help financially strapped U.S. universities.
He said:
“We’re going to allow their students to come in. It’s very important, 600,000 students. It’s very important. But we’re going to get along with China. But it’s a different relationship that we have now with China. It’s a much different relationship economically than it was before with Biden.”
The Independent Sentinel noted that many people are not buying it, and see the students as potential Chinese communist spies, not really students.
The CCP has a policy of requiring Chinese nationals to spy when called upon to do so.
That’s an army of 600,000 Chinese spies being allowed into the country. All for the benefit of America’s far-left universities. Cesspools of liberalism, almost everyone of them. I say let the worst ones die on the vine. We don’t need more Chinese spies coming to bail them out.
And whatever happened to the more than 100,000 military-age Chinese males who crossed into the U.S. illegally under the Biden administration? You don’t hear about them anymore. Where did they go? We’ve heard nothing from President Trump, his border czar Tom Holman, or anyone else in this administration about mass arrests of illegal Chinese nationals. I think if those arrests had happened we would have heard about it. What do you think? Leave me a comment below.
[Ed.: 600,000 Chinese studenta?
Mosques as Military Operations Centers AYNAZ ANNI CYRUS
When a “House of Worship” Trains an Army
AUG 26, 2025
Most Americans carry a common understanding of houses of worship. A church is where believers gather to worship God, to hear Scripture, to be baptized, to celebrate weddings, and to grieve at funerals. A synagogue is where the Torah is read, where generations learn the commandments, and where families gather in prayer before the God of Israel. When we see a steeple or a Star of David, our instinct is to associate it with reverence, holiness, fellowship, and peace.
For Jews and Christians, a house of worship is sacred ground. For Muslims, the mosque is something entirely different.
Just like Islam is not a religion like others, a mosque is not a house of worship either. Under Sharia, the mosque has always been more than a “spiritual center”. It has been the courthouse where judgments are handed down, the financial office where taxes are collected, the meeting hall where laws are declared, and the barracks where fighters gather before heading into battle.
Islamic law codifies this directly. Reliance of the Traveller (o11.0) specifies that the mosque is a community headquarters, the place for legal rulings, public announcements, and mobilization for jihad, not merely a prayer hall.
“The mosque is a place where Allah is worshipped, legal judgments are given, the Friday sermon is delivered, armies are prepared, and delegations are received.” – Reliance of the Traveller, o11.0
In short, it is a military operations center for the military system we know as Sharia.
That truth is not speculation or conspiracy. It is history, doctrine, and practice from the time of Muhammad all the way into today’s headlines.
From Medina to the Battlefield
When Muhammad migrated from Mecca to Medina in 622 CE, one of his very first acts was to establish a mosque. Islamic sources record this explicitly. The Mosque of Quba was built within days of his arrival (Sahih al-Bukhari, Book 8, Hadith 420), but it was the Prophet’s Mosque (al-Masjid an-Nabawi) in the heart of Medina that became the real center of power. That mosque was not simply for worship; it was the headquarters of his new Islamic state.
Inside the Prophet’s Mosque, Muhammad did not just lead prayers. He issued rulings, collected taxes, received foreign delegations, and most crucially planned and directed military campaigns. And the “prayers” themselves were not neutral rituals of peace; they were saturated with curses on Jews and Christians, calls to jihad, and invocations for conquest. In Islam, worship and warfare are inseparable. To worship Allah as Muhammad commanded is to prepare for battle in his name.
This is not my interpretation. The Qur’an itself ties devotion to Allah with combat: “Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed” – (Qur’an 9:111).
“Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed.” – Qur’an 9:111
Muhammad confirmed it in Hadith: “I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah” (Sahih Bukhari, Book 2, Hadith 25).
“I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah.”
Sahih Bukhari, Book 2, Hadith 25
Sharia manuals like Reliance of the Traveller codify it plainly: jihad is obligatory because it enforces Allah’s worship on earth.
The mosque was the place where jihad was launched. From the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina, Muhammad sent out raiding parties against Quraysh caravans, such as the Nakhla raid (624 CE), which killed Meccans and seized their goods during a sacred month. Soon after, the Battle of Badr (624 CE) was organized, and its fighters gathered at the mosque before marching out, a decisive clash that Muhammad declared a victory ordained by Allah. The Battle of Uhud (625 CE) and the Battle of the Trench (627 CE) were likewise strategized from Medina, with Muhammad directing defenses and issuing war orders from within the mosque complex.
War banners were raised on its grounds before expeditions departed. Prisoners of war, such as those captured at Badr, were brought back to the mosque, judged, and in many cases executed by Muhammad’s command (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah). Spoils of war, weapons, goods, livestock, and captives were stored in the mosque and then divided according to Qur’an 8:41, which allocates a fifth share directly to Muhammad and his household.
“And know that anything you obtain of war booty, then indeed, one fifth of it is for Allah, and for the Messenger, and for [his] near relatives, the orphans, the needy, and the stranded traveler, if you have believed in Allah and in that which We sent down to Our Servant on the day of criterion, the day when the two armies met. And Allah, over all things, is competent.”
Qur’an 8:41
The mosque was not corrupted into a war room; it was built to be one.
“Make ready against them whatever you can of force and of steeds of war, by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah.”
Qur’an 8:60
This verse, cited in tafsir like Ibn Kathir, is the operating manual. It was recited in the Prophet’s Mosque as fighters were trained and dispatched. Worship and strategy were fused into one, and the mosque was the launchpad for jihad.
The caliphs after Muhammad followed the same pattern. In Damascus, Baghdad, and Cairo, the grand mosques were more than prayer halls. They served as government seats, military assembly halls, and symbols of conquest. Wherever Islam expanded, the building of a mosque marked the territory as conquered. The minaret was not a symbol of peace. It was the flag of occupation.
Mosques Abroad: Weapons and Warfare
The legacy of the mosque as a military base is not confined to the dusty pages of Islamic history. It is alive today, visible across the Middle East and beyond, where mosques openly function as operational centers for jihad.
Iran uses mosques as extensions of its Basij militia. The prayer hall doubles as a recruitment center where children are indoctrinated with martyrdom propaganda, divided into squads, and sent to the front lines. Walls are plastered with posters of martyrs, turning “houses of worship” into shrines of death. In 2009, Iran’s own state media admitted that Basij units were organized through mosques during the crackdown on protesters (Iranian State Media, 2009), proving the mosque is the command post for internal repression and external war.
Afghanistan under the Taliban follows the same pattern. Mosque loudspeakers do not only call for prayer, they call villagers to arms. A 2010 NATO report documented Taliban commanders using Friday sermons to direct ambushes against convoys and to gather fighters in mosque courtyards before launching attacks (NATO ISAF Reports, 2010). In some cases, villagers were ordered from mosque pulpits to supply food, shelter, and children for the jihad.
Egypt has long exposed the same model. The Muslim Brotherhood’s mosques in Cairo were used during the 2013 uprising as command posts for stockpiling weapons and organizing street violence, leading security forces to seize arms caches hidden under prayer halls. In Pakistan, the Red Mosque (Lal Masjid) in Islamabad became infamous in 2007 when it functioned as a jihadist fortress, with militants storing weapons inside and launching armed clashes with the government that left over 100 dead.
Gaza provides some of the most undeniable evidence. During Operation Protective Edge in 2014, the IDF released photographs showing weapons caches inside mosques and tunnels dug beneath them. One mosque in Khan Younis was found with rockets stored in its basement; another in Nuseirat had mortar launchers hidden behind its prayer hall.
Even UN reports begrudgingly admitted Hamas’s use of mosques as military sites, though buried deep in the documents. The symbolism is intentional: Hamas wraps warfare in the cloak of religion, knowing the West hesitates to strike a “house of worship.”
Iraq and Syria, under ISIS, pushed the same model to the extreme. A 2015 Human Rights Watch investigation documented ISIS turning mosques into IED workshops and training grounds for suicide bombers (Human Rights Watch, 2015). In Mosul, sermons were fused with instructions on detonation techniques, and children were recruited in mosque classrooms not to pray, but to die. The minaret became a loudspeaker not for peace but for mass murder.
None of these examples is an aberration. They are a continuation of the original Medina model. The mosque is not corrupted when it houses weapons, indoctrinates fighters, or organizes attacks. It is fulfilling the role it was designed for. The mosque is not a house of worship in the Western sense. It is a military installation under religious cover.
Mosques in America
The American public has been trained to think “that could never happen here.” But it already has. From Virginia to Massachusetts to rural compounds scattered across the country, mosques in the United States have served as recruitment hubs, staging grounds, and ideological training centers for jihad. Law enforcement, congressional testimony, and federal court cases have revealed the pattern, though few dare to speak it aloud.
Falls Church, Virginia
Mosque: Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center
Founded: 1983 with funding assistance from the Saudi-backed North American Islamic Trust (NAIT)
One of the most infamous mosques in the U.S., repeatedly cited in congressional reports and FBI investigations as a center of Islamist preaching and terrorist ties.
This mosque became infamous after employing Anwar al-Awlaki as its imam. Awlaki was not only a preacher but an al-Qaeda recruiter whose influence reached far beyond Virginia. Two of the 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour, attended his sermons there. A later U.S. House report described Dar al-Hijrah as a “front for Islamic radicals” and a hub for Islamist activity. Awlaki’s lectures continued to inspire attacks even after he fled the country and became one of America’s most wanted terrorists, until he was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen.
“Dar al-Hijrah is a front for Islamic radicals.”
U.S. House Subcommittee on Terrorism, 2002
Monitored by the FBI for years, linked to multiple terrorism cases, but remains open and active.
Boston, Massachusetts
Mosque: Islamic Society of Boston (ISB)
Founded: 1981; later expanded into the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center (2009) with Qatari and Saudi financial backing.
A mosque and cultural center that became a hub for Islamist preachers and the training of the Tsarnaev brothers.
This mosque provided the ideological soil that produced the Boston Marathon bombing. The Tsarnaev brothers attended services there, absorbing years of sermons from preachers like Abdullah Faaruuq and Yusuf al-Qaradawi’s disciples. In 2008, its sister organization, the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, was found to have direct ties to convicted terrorists, including Aafia Siddiqui (known as “Lady al-Qaeda”) and Tarek Mehanna, convicted for aiding al-Qaeda. The pattern was clear: foreign money, Islamist preaching, and terror on U.S. streets.
Investigated after the 2013 Boston bombing; ties to international Islamist networks confirmed, but the mosque continues to operate.
Houston, Texas
Mosque: Masjid al-Farooq
Founded: Established in the 1960s as one of Houston’s oldest mosques.
Known for its role in sheltering al-Qaeda operatives and fundraising.
This mosque was attended by al-Qaeda operative Wadih el-Hage, later convicted in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa. Court testimony revealed that al-Farooq was used as a gathering point for Islamic sermons and fundraising connected to Osama bin Laden’s network. The mosque offered cover, a religious front for men who were already plotting jihad against Americans abroad and at home.
Cited in federal trial testimony as part of al-Qaeda’s U.S. support network.
Rural Compounds Across the U.S.
Group: Jamaat al-Fuqra / Muslims of America (MOA)
Founded: Imported into the U.S. in the 1980s by followers of Pakistani cleric Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani.
Unlike isolated urban mosques, this network runs entire rural compounds across the United States, from New York to Virginia to Colorado. At the center of each compound is a mosque that doubles as a paramilitary base. FBI reports and declassified documents have detailed weapons training, stockpiling, and jihadist propaganda tied to Fuqra. The group’s leader, Sheikh Gilani in Pakistan, has been linked to terrorist acts abroad, while his American followers maintain compounds that law enforcement has repeatedly investigated but rarely shut down. Residents live under Sharia discipline, raising their children in closed Islamist communities on U.S. soil.
FBI and ATF reports describe Fuqra/MOA as a terrorist organization; declassified FBI documents detail training and plots, yet the compounds remain active.
Bridgeview, Illinois
Mosque: Mosque Foundation (Bridgeview Mosque)
Founded: 1950s; expanded with heavy Saudi influence in the 1970s and 80s.
One of the largest mosques in the Midwest, repeatedly tied to Hamas support networks and imams.
This mosque outside Chicago has long been tied to Jihadist fundraising and Islamic preaching. In the 1990s and early 2000s, federal investigations linked its leaders to funneling money to Hamas and other jihadist groups through charities like the Holy Land Foundation. Preachers such as Jamal Said were documented promoting jihadist ideology.
Named in multiple terrorism-financing investigations; identified by the Chicago Tribune (2004) as a hub where “radical jihadist thought” spread in America.
Culver City, California
Mosque: King Fahd Mosque
Founded: 1998 with direct Saudi royal funding.
A lavish Saudi-backed mosque that has been repeatedly scrutinized for terror-financing links and Brotherhood influence.
Its leadership has included individuals tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and Jihadist networks. The mosque has been investigated for connections to al-Qaeda fundraisers and for hosting Islamic speakers.
Mentioned in FBI investigations of al-Qaeda fundraising in the U.S., its Saudi-controlled administration shields it from local accountability.
Tucson, Arizona
Mosque: Islamic Center of Tucson (ICT)
Founded: 1960s; linked for decades to Muslim Brotherhood leadership in the U.S.
Known as the “Mother Mosque” of Al-Qaeda in America, ICT served as a gathering place for Osama bin Laden’s key operatives while they were in the U.S. The mosque was frequented in the 1980s and 1990s by men later tied to bin Laden’s network, including Wael Jalaidan, one of Al-Qaeda’s original founders.
FBI investigations documented ICT as a breeding ground for Islamist ideology and recruitment, though it remains open and active today.
Brooklyn, New York
Mosque: Al-Farooq Mosque (Atlantic Avenue)
Founded: 1980s; became infamous during the jihadist wave of the 1990s.
This mosque was at the center of the “Brooklyn Jihad Office,” where Omar Abdel-Rahman (“the Blind Sheikh”) and his followers organized recruitment, fundraising, and training for jihad abroad. It was directly tied to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and plots to blow up New York landmarks.
Federal prosecutors described it as a front for Al-Qaeda and related jihadist movements operating on American soil.
Al-Farooq Mosque was never permanently shut down. It remains open today, still operating in Brooklyn under the same name.
These cases are not anomalies. They are not “abuses” of a neutral space. They are proof that the doctrinal model of the mosque-as-barracks has crossed into America intact. The same system that turned the Prophet’s Mosque into a war council in Medina now operates behind the façades of mosques in Boston, Virginia, Texas, and rural America.
The pattern is consistent: sermons as recruitment, prayer halls as staging grounds, mosques as fronts for funding and operations. The doctrine has not changed, only the geography.
The Battlefield Next Door
The West has extended blind tolerance to a system that has no tolerance in return. By shielding mosques under the blanket of religious freedom without acknowledging their doctrinal role, we have allowed enemy outposts to plant themselves in our neighborhoods.
If mosques abroad serve as barracks, weapons depots, and command centers, why should we assume mosques here are any different? History shows they were designed that way. Sharia texts confirm that it is their role. Real-world cases in our own country prove it.
The battlefield is not only in Afghanistan, Gaza, or Syria. It is in Boston, Houston, Illinois, California, Virginia, and every city in America with a mosque. It is in compounds hidden in rural America. The sooner we recognize that, the sooner we can confront the reality.
And the reality is simple: a mosque is not a house of worship. It is the flag of occupation, raised on our soil under the protection of our own laws. The longer we pretend otherwise, the closer the war comes to our own doorsteps.
If we ignore the pattern, how many more Boston bombings, how many more 9/11s, will it take before we admit what a mosque really is?
Free Palestine? Or free pass for terror? LUCY TABRIZI
So many people are talking about Israel, yet so few are getting it right.
AUG 25, 2025
People often ask, sometimes with curiosity, sometimes with suspicion: “Why do you talk about Israel so much?”
Fair question.
Recently, Sydney hosted a rally so huge you’d think it was a national holiday. Officially it was for the Palestinian people. In reality, it looked more like a parade for theocrats.
This is Australia. A vibrant, multicultural democracy I’ve always called home. Police estimated 90,000 people marched across the Harbour Bridge under banners of “humanity,” mostly with Palestinian flags, but among them were Taliban and Hezbollah-style flags, and portraits of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps.
From the front row, a portrait of Ayatollah Khamenei could be seen. The leader of a regime that beats women for showing their hair, hangs dissidents from cranes, and guns down teenage girls for chanting “Woman, Life, Freedom.”
Islamist groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir were there too. They’re banned in Germany, the UK, and much of the Arab world, but apparently welcome in Sydney. The only Australian flag I saw was the one they set on fire.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called it a “peaceful” march for Gaza. Odd. The one I saw looked more like cheering on the same jihadist forces that dragged Gaza into war, hide behind civilians, steal aid, and refuse to end the fighting.
After 20 months of the largest protests in decades “for the Palestinian people,” not once have they called on Hamas to surrender, even as many Gazans plead for it. Their aim doesn’t seem to be ending what they call “genocide,” but keeping the accusation alive. When footage or casualty claims collapse, they are not relieved; they are disappointed, because worse stories mean better weapons against Israel.
I used to think Australia was a few years behind the moral rot engulfing Western Europe and North America. But I’ve since realised “Free Palestine” is a smokescreen, a way to smuggle in a war on Western civilisation under the banner of compassion. The world’s oldest hatred, dressed up as resistance to Israel, is just the entry point.
Let me rewind.
For years, most of my posts were about animal rights or the occasional rant about how the Left, my side, was drifting into authoritarianism. I was sympathetic to the Palestinian people, but I wasn’t confused about their jihadist leaders or Israel’s right to exist. I had a decent grasp of the history, yet Israel wasn’t on my radar. Then everything changed, or rather, global attention did.
On October 7th, the world witnessed one of the most barbaric terrorist attacks in modern history, filmed proudly by the attackers themselves. Civilians butchered in their beds. Children burned alive in front of their parents. Elderly Holocaust survivors dragged from their homes. Women raped, mutilated, and paraded through the streets while jeering crowds spat on their bodies. Babies and toddlers among the hundreds taken hostage. Peace activists who’d spent years building bridges with Palestinians hunted down and executed. It was the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust.
Where was the outrage? The solidarity? The celebrity hashtags? When Boko Haram kidnapped hundreds of schoolgirls, the world lit up with #BringBackOurGirls. When #MeToo took off, the abuse of women dominated headlines for years. When George Floyd was murdered, Black Lives Matter became a global rallying cry — yet it stayed silent when Hamas terrorists gunned down Black African farm workers on camera, with some chapters even expressing solidarity with the attackers.
No wall-to-wall coverage. No Instagram squares. No rainbow flags for the only country in the region where you can be openly gay without being flogged or hanged.
Almost overnight, Israel became the internet’s moral battleground. But the crowds in Western cities weren’t condemning the terrorists; they were defending them. Some openly celebrated. Others went for a polished version of moral inversion: “Israel had it coming.” I saw humanitarians describe the massacre as Gaza “breaking out of prison,” as if the slaughter of civilians were an act of liberation.
Imagine if, after 9/11, protesters in London, Paris, and Sydney marched with Al-Qaeda flags and Osama bin Laden’s face under banners of “humanity.” The October 7th massacre was Israel’s 9/11, many times worse in proportion to its population, yet on the very same day it was met with global justification and applause.
What stunned me more than the celebrations was how quickly NGOs, universities, media outlets and governments rushed to legitimise them. They didn’t wait for months of fighting or rising civilian casualties before turning on Israel. It happened on October 7th, before Israel had fired a single shot in return.
For anyone who thought civil society could not turn on Jews in broad daylight, this was the wake-up call. I heard it loud and clear. Those around me didn’t, and I still don’t understand how. The West had done this before, turning away Jewish refugees before the Holocaust. The majority can be catastrophically wrong. Antisemitism, long thought banished to the fringes, had come roaring back into fashion dressed as political virtue.
None of this is about claiming Israel is beyond criticism. No democracy is. But the obsessive condemnation, the grotesque double standards, and the free pass given to far worse regimes are hallmarks of antisemitism. The world’s oldest hatred, refitted for today’s politics by projecting ancient tropes and libels onto the Jewish state. And the pushback was far too weak.
It quickly became clear this was not just another regional dispute, but a civilisational fault line — between flawed but free liberal democracies and authoritarian movements like Islamism and hard-Left revolutionaries, united in their hatred of those freedoms. Iran says it openly: Israel first, the West next.
Equating a democracy with a jihadist terror group is not a serious argument. It is moral confusion. Yes, Israel has been accused of war crimes, as has every nation that has fought a war. But for Hamas, war crimes are the strategy, using civilians as shields and targeting civilians as policy. They are funded and armed by Iran, part of a broader civilisational axis that exploits Western freedoms to destroy them. Their information war has been so effective they have recruited university students and well-meaning Left-leaning activists in democracies to do their bidding.
Most people do not realise how central propaganda has been to the conflict. Since the 1960s, and even more so since the 1990s, Israel’s enemies, unable to win on the battlefield, switched tactics. They set out to delegitimise Israel in the court of public opinion until its destruction feels like justice. It has worked brilliantly, especially on well-meaning people who think they are standing for what is right.
This is not some distant issue I can ignore. It is right here in my backyard. Another march for Gaza is being pushed for across my city’s most iconic bridge.
Whenever I see those crowds, I think of the student protests in Iran before the Islamic Revolution: young, idealistic, certain they were fighting for freedom. They never intended to hand their country to religious hardliners, but that is exactly what happened. Even then, anti-Israel sentiment was a unifying rallying cry, laced with Nazi imagery and portraying the Shah, the United States, and Israel as a single axis of evil.
I don’t want that for Australia. I don’t want my children growing up under an ideology that crushes freedom, erases women’s rights, and punishes dissent with brutality. When I look at them, I care far more about the world they will inherit than about strangers on the internet calling me a “genocide supporter.” Their future matters more than my reputation with people who have lost their moral compass.
At those rallies, two kinds of people march side by side. One walks in ignorance, convinced they’re standing up for human rights. The other knows exactly what they’re marching for, and it has nothing to do with peace.
Many of my friends fell into that first camp of compassionate ignorance: well-meaning but hopelessly misinformed. When I replied to a few early on, most said they knew very little and “just wanted to help.”
Following the October 7th atrocities, many embraced a neat yet false narrative: in 1948, Israel appeared out of nowhere, ethnically cleansed the Palestinians, and has run a genocidal, apartheid regime ever since. Hamas? Iran? Jihad? Never heard of them. Just a side issue. Or, more often, “a justified response to Israeli oppression.”
Every so often, someone I know posts about “Palestine” for the first time, and I get that sinking feeling: not you, too. Then it snowballs into daily updates. Moral righteousness is a hell of a drug. And if this many people in my small circle are this easily duped, what does that say about the wider population? Is this how revolutions happen — not with a sudden bang, but with a slow drip of moral certainty that no one stops to question? Because that is exactly what Palestinian leaders have relied on for decades.
It is why they have never accepted statehood. Statelessness is their greatest weapon, winning them global sympathy to wield as a bludgeon against Israel. Most wars create refugees, and in every other context refugees are resettled and rebuild. The Palestinians were kept in place — not by Israel, but by the Arab world with help from UNRWA (the UN agency for Palestinians), the only UN agency devoted to a single group. Not to solve the problem, but to freeze it and pass it down as political leverage. In almost any other conflict, there would be no distinct Palestinian people today. Here, the grievance was preserved, nurtured, and marketed.
That grievance has found natural allies far beyond the Middle East. In Australia, “Abolish Australia” activists have linked arms with “Free Palestine” supporters. On the surface it looks like solidarity between Indigenous Australians and Palestinians. In reality, it is a convergence of activist factions, united by an ideology that frames liberal democracies as illegitimate colonial projects to be dismantled.
If they truly cared about decolonisation and Indigenous self-determination, they would support Israel’s right to exist. For the historically challenged: Jews are from Judea — the ancient name for the southern part of today’s Israel. Zionism is one of history’s most successful decolonisation movements.
Seeing Palestinians, an Arab ethno-national group, rebranded as the “First Nations” of the Middle East as they marched across the Harbour Bridge was one of the most audacious marketing coups of our time; a showcase in how completely we have inverted reality by erasing the far deeper Jewish connection to the land.
And so here we are. Another march in another city, on another bridge. Another crowd convinced they are on the side of freedom, standing shoulder to shoulder with those who would be the first to destroy it.
This is why I talk about Israel. Because history is full of moments where people cheered for movements that ended in tyranny. We are watching it happen again. And if we can’t even name it when it’s aimed at the Jewish state, we will be powerless to stop it when it comes for the rest of us.
The question that runs through my head daily is: Why are so many talking about Israel, yet so few getting it right?
‘Washington Post’ two-state solution is unrealistic MOSHE PHILLIPS
The vast majority of Jordanians are Palestinian Arabs according to their history, culture, language and religion.
August 25, 2025 Jewish News Service
The editorial writers at The Washington Post support establishing a sovereign Palestinian Arab state next to Israel. They continue to say this even as Israel approaches nearly two years of war with Hamas in the Gaza Strip following the Hamas-led terrorist attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
Unfortunately, they don’t seem to understand that Oct. 7 has changed everything.
The most alarming statement in the Aug. 24 editorial may be this groundless claim: “A two-state solution remains the only viable option to end decades of continuous bloodshed … .”
For decades, the debate over creating a Palestinian state revolved around two major issues: the intentions of the Palestinian Arabs and the actual borders of such a state.
Statehood supporters claimed that the Palestinian Arab leadership and the majority of Palestinian Arabs would live in peace with Israel if they were given a sovereign state.
Until the 1993 Oslo Accords, nobody knew whether that claim had merit. Nobody knew for sure how the Palestinian Arabs would behave if given self-rule. But since 1993, the question of their intentions has been tested, and they have failed that test. Miserably.
The first test was during the years of 1993 and 1995, when Israel signed the Oslo Accords and surrendered control of 40% of Judea and Samaria to the Palestinian Authority. The behavior of its leader, longtime PLO chief Yasser Arafat, and his successor, Mahmoud Abbas, was supposed to show that it was safe to give them a full-fledged state.
Instead, it exhibited the opposite. The P.A. has sheltered and paid terrorists; sponsored terrorist attacks through Fatah’s Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade; incited hatred of Jews through their media and schools; and undertaken massive arms smuggling, such as the infamous Karine A in 2002, with its 50 tons of weapons. People who sincerely want peace don’t need 50 tons of illegal rockets, guns and bombs.
The second test of Palestinian intentions was Israel’s surrender of Gaza—most of it in 1994, the rest in 2005. What did Palestinian Arab control of Gaza tell us about giving them statehood? They built a terrorist army, they bombarded Israel with rockets, and on Oct. 7, they invaded.
So much for the intentions of the Palestinian Arabs. Now, what about the actual borders of the proposed state?
Every map of a “two-state solution” requires an Israeli withdrawal to the nine-mile-wide borders of 1949 to 1967. The reason those lines are inevitable is that P.A. cities such as Tulkarem and Qalqilya are nine miles from the Mediterranean Sea—and the P.A. is not going to give up those cities.
Nine miles wide means that Israel’s strategic midsection would be virtually indefensible. Israel’s major cities and Ben-Gurion International Airport would be within easy rocket range of terrorists stationed on the “Palestine” side of the border. If Israeli forces chased those terrorists across the border, Israel would become the target of severe international condemnation. The United Nations would almost surely threaten sanctions, as would the European Union.
And who would prevent “Palestine” from importing Iranian missiles or “volunteer” troops from Yemen? Could any international body be trusted to intervene? Would the American public be ready to get mixed up in such a conflict? Not likely.
Israeli security is not the only consideration. Historical facts are also important. A Palestinian Arab state was established in 1922, when the British unilaterally severed the eastern 78% of the Palestinian Mandate from the rest of the country and changed that region’s name to “Transjordan.” Later, they changed it to “Jordan.”
But changing a name doesn’t change the identity of its citizens. The vast majority of Jordanians are Palestinian Arabs according to their history, culture, language and religion. In other words, Jordan is already the Palestinian state that The Washington Post’s editors are shouting for. The only obstacle to Palestinian statehood is that Jordan is ruled by a king who refuses to restore the country’s rightful historical name.
If any Palestinian Arab residents of Gaza, or Judea and Samaria, ever decide that they actually do want to live in a sovereign state where everyone speaks their language, worships according to their religion, and shares their history and culture, then 78% of historic Palestine awaits them, just a few miles to the east.
The Post’s editors wrote: “In a perfect world, every group that wants a sovereign state could have one. But in the real world, they shouldn’t.”
Almost every country in the world has one or more ethnic minorities that would like to have their own sovereign state: the Basques in Spain, the Quebeçois nationalists in Canada, some Native American tribes in the United States, the Kurds in Iraq, the Tibetans in China, the Kashmiris in India … the list is almost endless.
In some cases, the reason they should not be given a state is a simple matter of right and wrong. In Israel’s case, for example, the Jewish people’s historical, religious and legal claims to the Land of Israel are far stronger than those of the Palestinian Arabs.
In other cases, some aggrieved people genuinely deserve a state; however, giving them one would endanger the well-being of others or undermine the country’s very existence. So their theoretical right has to give way to reality.
The Palestinian Arabs are unique: They already have a state in the eastern 78% of Palestine and yet demand a second one in much of the rest of the country. Their demand, too, has to give way to reality.
The Washington Post needs to recognize this reality. Their editors need to accept the fact that the world has changed. A “two-state solution” today means a situation in which Israel will be threatened with an Oct. 7 every single day. That is something no reasonable nation can accept.
MOSHE PHILLIPS Moshe Phillips, a veteran pro-Israel activist and author, is the national chairman of Americans For a Safe Israel (AFSI). A former board member of the American Zionist Movement, he previously served as national director of the U.S. division of Herut and worked with CAMERA in Philadelphia. He was also a delegate to the 2020 World Zionist Congress and served as editor of The Challenger, the publication of the Tagar Zionist Youth Movement. His op-eds and letters have been widely published in the United States and Israel.
The Disturbing Logic Of The Left | Melanie Phillips [5:55]
Mar 11, 2025 – Melanie Phillips discusses the cognitive dissonance progressive liberals use to defend Hamas.
Melanie Phillips is a British public commentator with a distinguished career in journalism. She began her professional journey writing for The Guardian and New Statesman and currently contributes to The Times, The Jerusalem Post, and The Jewish Chronicle, focusing on political and social issues. Phillips has also appeared as a panelist on BBC Radio 4’s The Moral Maze and BBC One’s Question Time. In recognition of her journalistic contributions, she was awarded the Orwell Prize for Journalism in 1996 while writing for The Observer. Her other published works include the memoir Guardian Angel: My Story, My Britain.
You can watch the full interview here: [1:44:42] • Fighting Anti-Semitism and Cultural Decay …
F*ck around with Israel and find out. JOSHUA HOFFMAN
History shows what happens when Israel’s patience is mistaken for weakness.
AUG 24, 2025
“F*ck around and find out,” often abbreviated to FAFO, is modern internet slang for an ancient truth: Reckless or provocative behavior brings painful consequences.
It’s the edgier cousin of “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes” and “You reap what you sow.”
For Israel, FAFO isn’t just slang; it’s a survival principle, forged in war, blood, and necessity.
The world saw this principle in action again on Sunday, when the Israeli Air Force launched strikes deep into Yemen’s Houthi-controlled capital, Sanaa. The targets were strategic: the presidential palace, a fuel depot, and two power stations. The strikes came just days after the Houthis escalated their campaign, firing a ballistic missile tipped with a cluster bomb warhead — the first of its kind — that struck central Israel and damaged a civilian home.
The message was immediate and unmistakable: You escalate, we escalate harder. You terrorize Israeli civilians, you’ll wake up to the sound of F-35s screaming over your capital. That is FAFO diplomacy at its purest — swift, unambiguous, and unforgettable.
The clearest example of FAFO in modern memory, though, came on October 7, 2023. Hamas didn’t just poke the bear; it unleashed a savagery so grotesque, so depraved, that the response was always going to be cataclysmic.
In a single morning, thousands of terrorists stormed across the border, massacring 1,200 innocent people: men and women, children and grandparents, babies in their cribs and teenagers at a music festival. Families were burned alive in their homes. Women were raped in front of their children. More than 250 hostages were dragged back into Gaza’s tunnels like war trophies. And all of it — every last bit — was gleefully filmed and shared, as if to dare Israel to respond.
And then — somehow — Hamas and its enablers expected Israel to do nothing.
What followed should be studied in war colleges for decades: the methodical dismantling of Hamas’ military, political, and financial infrastructure. Entire neighborhoods that hid tunnels or weapons caches were reduced to rubble. Senior Hamas leaders were hunted down, one by one. Tens of thousands of terrorists were killed.
The rocket factories? Gone. The command centers? Dust. The tunnel network once called “the Metro”? Collapsing by the day.
Western critics call it “collective punishment.” Israelis call it collective consequence. Gaza is not being destroyed for no reason. It is paying the price for decades of choices — for embracing terror over coexistence, for turning schools into arsenals, for electing leaders who vowed to wipe Israel off the map.
This is what “found out” looks like.
October 7th and the strikes on Sanaa aren’t anomalies. They’re just the latest chapters in a 77-year saga in which Israel’s enemies misread its patience as weakness — and paid dearly for it.
- 1948: Five Arab armies invaded the newborn State of Israel, promising to drive the Jews into the sea. Instead, Israel expanded its territory and humiliated its attackers.
- 1967: Egypt, Syria, and Jordan mobilized for war, blockaded Israeli shipping lanes, and promised annihilation. Six days later, the IDF controlled the Sinai, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights.
- 1973: On Yom Kippur, Arab armies launched a surprise attack. Israel bled, but it didn’t break. Within weeks, the IDF had crossed the Suez Canal and surrounded the Egyptian Third Army.
- 2006: Hezbollah kidnapped and killed Israeli soldiers on the northern border. In response, southern Lebanon was torn apart, and Hezbollah has lived with that summer’s memory ever since.
- 2012, 2014, 2021: Hamas rained rockets on Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Each time, Gaza paid a steeper price than before.
This is the immutable law of Israel’s neighborhood: Attack the Jewish state, and you will face overwhelming force.
And still, Israel doesn’t live by FAFO out of choice; it lives by it out of necessity. When you’re surrounded by enemies, deterrence is your first and last line of defense.
That’s why Israel strikes weapons convoys in Syria, why it sabotages Iran’s nuclear program, and why terrorist masterminds like Ismail Haniyeh and Hassan Nasrallah met their ends without warning.
This isn’t vengeance; it’s survival. When your existence is non-negotiable, clarity of consequence becomes your greatest insurance policy.
Of course, every time Israel acts, the world erupts in outrage. United Nations resolutions fly. Western journalists wring their hands. College campuses seethe. And yet, when Israelis are massacred, when Palestinians are arrested in Tel Aviv for alleged ties to a planned terror attack in the city (which happened today), when children grow up running to bomb shelters, the world shrugs.
The hypocrisy is staggering, but irrelevant. Israel learned long ago that no one else will defend the Jewish state. The IDF doesn’t wait for permission slips from the UN or lectures from pundits. It acts because it must.
And every time the world underestimates Israel’s resolve, they “find out” just how far the Jewish state is willing to go to protect its people.
Ironically, FAFO doesn’t just lead to war; it sometimes leads to peace. Egypt made peace with Israel not because it fell in love with Zionism, but because it understood, after 1967 and 1973, that Israel could not be defeated. Jordan reached the same conclusion. And the Abraham Accords — starting with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco — are built on the same foundation: respect earned through strength. In the Middle East, deterrence is the currency of survival — and, sometimes, the down payment for coexistence.
Perhaps the most tragic part of the FAFO equation is that it didn’t have to be this way for the Palestinians.
They had opportunities — after the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, after Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, after billions in international aid poured in — to build a functioning state, to embrace coexistence, to write a different story. Instead, their leaders chose terror and antisemitism. They chose rockets and tunnels over schools and hospitals. They chose martyrdom over modernity.
Now, Gaza is in ruins. And while the world rushes to paint Palestinians as eternal victims, the harsh truth is this: The bill came due.
The Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the regime in Tehran would do well to take note. Israel has already shown it can reach into Iranian territory to establish immediate air supremacy, assassinate nuclear scientists, hack critical infrastructure, disrupt weapons programs.
FAFO also carries a deeper meaning in the Jewish story. From Masada to the Warsaw Ghetto to the birth of Israel in 1948, Jewish survival has always depended on a simple truth: Strength is the only guarantee of safety. The world may lecture. The world may condemn. But the Jewish state will never again wait for others to come to its rescue.
Finally, FAFO isn’t just a message for Israel’s enemies; it’s a message for Jews everywhere. When we stand unapologetically with Israel, when we reject the temptation to bow to fashionable lies or to soften our voice to appease others, we send the same message: Weakness invites danger, but strength ensures survival.
In a world where antisemitism is resurgent, there is no room for timidity. There is only one path forward: Be strong, be proud, and make it clear — to everyone — that the Jewish People will not be victimized again.
For 77 years, Israel’s enemies have deluded themselves into thinking that if they just hit harder, if they just terrorize civilians enough, Israel will fold. They confuse Israeli patience with fragility. They mistake democratic debate for existential fatigue.
And every time, they learn the same hard lesson: Israel may bend, but it never breaks. “F*ck around and find out” isn’t a slogan here. It’s statecraft, born of necessity and sharpened by survival. For those who still don’t understand, the message couldn’t be clearer: If you come for the Jewish state, be prepared to find out — the hard way.
[Ed.:
Justice, Justice You Shall Automate? BY MORDECHAI SONES
How Artificial Intelligence is subverting the pursuit of justice in Israel
AUGUST 24, 2025 Jewish Home News
The Torah portion of Shoftim contains one of the most foundational injunctions in Jewish jurisprudence: “צֶדֶק צֶדֶק תִּרְדֹּף” – “Justice, justice you shall pursue.” Rashi explains the repetition of the word “justice” as a profound command: one must pursue justice relentlessly, through just and righteous means. The method of pursuit is as crucial as the outcome.
Contents
A Deliberate Gamble on Innovation Over Precaution
The Machine in the Courtroom: A Record of Missteps and Rebuke
Corrosion of Trust
Beit Din and the Algorithm: Halachic Impasse
Are We Just Machines Now?
Pursuing True Justice
This command by the Creator poses a direct and urgent challenge to the modern State of Israel as it navigates the integration of Artificial Intelligence into its legal sphere. The premature and inadequately regulated adoption of AI, a tool that is inherently opaque, prone to error, and devoid of human conscience, represents not merely a new method, but a fundamental subversion of this holy pursuit. It threatens to replace the nuanced, human striving towards righteousness with the cold, and often flawed, logic of the machine.
Prevailing policy prioritizes economic innovation over essential legal safeguards, leading to demonstrable failures in the administration of justice. Currently, there is still a stark contrast between the secular court system, which is grappling with the tangible consequences of AI misuse, and the Rabbinical Batei Din, which largely reject AI’s role in judicial reasoning on deeply-rooted theological grounds. Current AI adoption subverts the pursuit of true justice by introducing systemic bias, eroding human discretion and public trust, and creating a profound accountability vacuum.
A Deliberate Gamble on Innovation Over Precaution
The challenges of AI within Israel’s legal system are a direct consequence of a national policy that consciously prioritizes technological and economic ambitions over robust legal and ethical safeguards. This permissive environment, characterized by a preference for “soft law,” sets the stage for the injustices documented in courtrooms across the country.
In December 2023, the government cemented a strategy of forgoing formal, rigid AI legislation, viewing it as a potential impediment to the nation’s powerful high-tech sector, which contributes 18% of its GDP. The policy’s primary objective is to foster AI advancement, with safeguarding human rights presented as a parallel, but not overriding, concern.
This strategic choice has created a fundamental disconnect between the executive branch’s economic priorities and the judiciary’s need for clear, enforceable rules. The government’s “soft law” approach effectively outsources the work of setting AI standards to the courts, forcing them into a reactive posture.
The consequences are severe. In the absence of binding rules, legal practitioners and even state agencies have experimented with powerful but flawed AI tools, leading directly to the submission of fabricated evidence and fictitious laws in court.
The 2023 AI Policy champions “Responsible Innovation” and “explainability” as core principles. Yet, the hands-off regulatory approach simultaneously allows for the unfettered development of “black box” systems whose inner workings are opaque.
This is the “explainability paradox”: the government’s policy espouses a critical safeguard for justice while cultivating an environment that ensures this safeguard cannot be enforced. The direct result is the situation sharply criticized by an Israeli District Court, where the police used a predictive AI tool that operated as a “black box,” with no one able to explain how it reached its conclusions, making effective judicial review impossible.
The Machine in the Courtroom: A Record of Missteps and Rebuke
The negative impact of AI on the Israeli justice system is not speculative but a documented fact. The most glaring failure has been the repeated submission of court filings based on AI-generated “hallucinations”—entirely fabricated case law and fictitious legal statutes.
This pattern of misconduct has escalated from individual attorneys to the Israel Police. In one instance, an attorney submitted pleadings to the Jerusalem Magistrates’ Court citing fabricated rulings. The crisis reached a head in February 2025, when the Supreme Court heard an appeal from a Sharia Court decision where the argument was based almost entirely on fabricated judgments.
The case involving the Israel Police is particularly alarming. In May 2025, during a hearing at the Hadera Magistrate’s Court, the police submitted an argument citing legal clauses that simply did not exist. The defendant’s attorney correctly suspected the use of ChatGPT, a suspicion the police representative was forced to admit was correct. Judge Ehud Kaplan reacted with shock, stating, “If I thought I had seen everything in the 30 years I have been on the bench, I must have been wrong.” This incident reveals a dangerous combination of technological illiteracy and professional irresponsibility from a state actor.
Beyond fabricated law lies the more subtle threat of algorithmic bias. In a personal injury lawsuit in the Haifa Magistrates’ Court, an AI-generated summary of medical records was disqualified not because it was demonstrably false, but because of the inherent risk that the AI could create “new, processed content tailored to the needs of the party using them,” subtly influencing an expert’s judgment. This established a crucial precedent: the potential for undetectable bias can be sufficient grounds for inadmissibility.
Corrosion of Trust
The very fabric of Israeli society is woven with trust—trust in the State’s institutions, media, and legal system. Technology, particularly AI, is proving to be a powerful corrosive agent against this trust. Just as a simple Google Translate glitch can turn a routine police report into an international incident by mistranslating an innocent bystander’s post as “attack them,” the uncritical use of AI in law destroys the assumption of veracity that underpins the entire judicial process.
When a lawyer or police officer can, with a few keystrokes, generate and submit a legal argument based on non-existent laws, the court is no longer a forum for truth-seeking.
This technological carelessness finds fertile ground in a legal culture already accustomed to sidelining due process, most notably through the state’s use of administrative detention, where individuals are imprisoned without trial and judicial oversight is often rendered moot. In an environment so permissive of such a profound departure from the rule of law, it is little wonder that the new, more subtle erosion of justice represented by AI has been so easily and carelessly accepted.
It becomes a theater of digital illusion, and public confidence plummets. Each AI “hallucination” submitted as fact is a small tear in the social contract, leaving citizens to wonder if they are governed by law or by algorithmic whim.
This erosion of trust is not a bug but a feature of a system that moves too fast and with too much complexity for human oversight to keep pace. The allure of speed and efficiency creates a powerful temptation to abdicate responsibility to the machine.
As seen in other high-stakes domains, from aviation to finance, the increasing autonomy of AI systems creates an “inescapable risk.” When these complex, self-learning systems fail, they fail in unpredictable and often catastrophic ways, and the distributed nature of their creation makes it nearly impossible to assign accountability.
This is the accountability vacuum now emerging in Israeli law: when an algorithmic error leads to a miscarriage of justice, who is to blame? The developer? The user? The machine itself? Without clear answers, there can be no true recourse, and therefore, no justice.
Beit Din and the Algorithm: Halachic Impasse
While the secular legal system struggles with the misapplication of AI, Israel’s religious court system, the Batei Din, present a different case. Here, there are no documented instances of a dayan being caught using AI for legal rulings. Resistance to AI stems from a profound understanding of the nature of halakha (Jewish law).
A significant body of rabbinic opinion argues that AI is constitutionally incompatible with rendering a ruling. Halakha is not a binary legal code; rulings depend on intangible human factors. Justice, in this view, requires an empathetic engagement that a machine cannot replicate.
Furthermore, a correct ruling is derived not only from written texts but from mesorah—the vast body of unwritten tradition passed down orally—and shimush, the practical wisdom gained through long apprenticeship. An AI has no access to this lived, embodied wisdom. Finally, traditional Jewish thought holds that a qualified human judge receives divine assistance—siyata dishmaya—to arrive at a just ruling, a grace not extended to an algorithm.
However, the religious courts are not entirely insulated from AI’s disruptive influence. In a significant case, an attorney was caught misusing AI in an attempt to challenge a religious court’s ruling within the secular legal system. The lawyer’s appeal to the Supreme Court was based almost entirely on AI-hallucinated precedents. This incident highlights how the risks of AI can still affect and undermine the religious courts, even if the technology is not used by the judges themselves, by corrupting the appellate process in the secular system.
Are We Just Machines Now?
The uncritical embrace of technology risks a profound dehumanization, a flattening of human experience into machine-readable data. We are becoming primitive moderns, armed with godlike technological power but increasingly disconnected from the truth and wisdom that give it meaning. In a world mediated by luminous screens and dead algorithms, we are losing the ability to truly hear one another. Communication becomes a transaction, an exchange of information rather than a meeting of souls.
This is precisely the danger AI introduces into the courtroom. It tempts the legal system to treat human beings—with their complex histories, emotions, and moral struggles—as mere bundles of data points to be processed. A judge’s wisdom, a lawyer’s empathy, a litigant’s plea for understanding—these are the very things that cannot be digitized. By outsourcing legal reasoning to a machine, we are not just risking error; we are risking our own humanity.
Pursuing True Justice
The evidence from Israel’s national policy, secular courtrooms, and religious legal philosophy converges on a single, troubling conclusion: Artificial Intelligence, in its current form and under the prevailing regulatory regime, fundamentally subverts the pursuit of justice. The injunction “Justice, justice you shall pursue” is not a call for perfect, automated outcomes. It is a call for a deeply human process—a relentless, conscientious, and empathetic struggle toward what is right. It demands that we use just means to achieve just ends.
An algorithm cannot “pursue.” It can only process. A machine cannot weigh the unquantifiable essence of a human life. It cannot understand mercy, context, or repentance. To place our faith in such a tool is to abandon the very pursuit the Torah commands. To realign the integration of technology with the core principles of justice, a fundamental shift is required: from a “soft law” approach to binding legislation for high-stakes sectors; from advisory opinions to mandatory professional education; and from a naive embrace of innovation to a mature, critical engagement with its moral limits.
The pursuit of justice is the work of human hands, human minds, and human hearts working in partnership with the Creator, according to His law.
As AI’s footprint grows, so does the urgency to protect this essential truth, lest Israel’s courts, mere processors of data, ravage the souls they blindly judge while remaining deaf to the Torah’s call to pursue justice, justly.
Italian Comedian ENDS “Religion Of Peace” Myth, (And British Crowd ERUPTED!) [14:56] Yishai Fleisher
Aug 22, 2025 – Smart, hard hitting humor to clear the cobwebs of the mind… Nicholas De Santo.
Israel: The US’ Uniquely Pro-Active Ally Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger
August 21, 2025 “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
*During June 13-21, 2025, Israel carried out a most complex and successful military offensive against Iran’s Ayatollah regime, which is the epicenter of anti-US global Islamic terrorism and drug trafficking, obliterating Iran’s air force and ground-to-air tracking, jamming and intercepting systems. This Israeli offensive facilitated the June 21, 2025 US bombing of three critical Iranian nuclear facilities, with no effective Iranian opposition.
*In 2017, Israel infiltrated an al-Qaeda bomb-making cell in Syria, sharing with the US details of a scheme to plant explosives in batteries of laptops and other electronic devices, while evading airport screening devices. Consequently, airport security has been dramatically upgraded, sparing the US homeland security nightmare.
*These two cases demonstrate the pro-active Israeli contributions to US homeland and national security, which no other US ally would/could perform in the face of mutual threats, such as Sunni and Shiite global terrorism, and in defiance of Russian and Chinese interests.
*Previous examples of Israel’s pro-active game-changing operations and their benefits to the US include:
<The 2007 destruction of Syria’s nuclear reactor, which spared the region and the globe the ramifications of a nuclearized civil war in Syria;
<The 1981 destruction of Iraq’s nuclear reactor, which snatched all pro-US Arab oil-producing regimes from the jaws of Saddam Hussein, and spared the US a nuclear confrontation during the 1991 First Gulf War;
<The 1982 destruction of 20 most advanced Soviet ground-to-air missile batteries (“Operation Mole Cricket 19”), which tilted the global balance of power in favor of the US, and is still featured prominently in the US Air Force’s training program and battle tactics;
<The 1976 Entebbe Operation, which inspired and upgraded the US counter-terrorism performance;
<The 1970 Israeli military deployment to the Golan Heights, which forced a rollback of the pro-Soviet Syrian invasion of pro-US Jordan. The invasion could have triggered the ousting of all pro-US oil-producing Arab regimes south of Jordan, yielding the USSR a strategic bonanza, at a time when the US was bogged down in Southeast Asia, unable to dispatch a military force to Jordan, and largely-dependent on Persian Gulf oil;
<The 1967 Six Day War, which aborted the Soviet plan to catapult Egyptian President Nasser into Pan Arab leadership, while toppling every pro-US Arab regime;
<etc.
US’ European allies
*The national security of NATO’s European countries is highly reliant on US military bases, requiring an annual US appropriation of some $36bn, including 80,000 US servicemen.
*Unlike European allies of the US (as well as Japan and South Korea – $7bn annual appropriation and 81,000 US servicemen), Israel does not need US military bases on its soil, is largely self-funded and is militarily self-manned. Since 1967, upon gaining control of the mountain ridges of the Golan Heights, Judea and Samaria, Israel has been transformed from a security-consumer to a security-producer for the US; from a war-inducing to a war-deterring US ally.
*While Europe is a platform for US military bases, Israel is a platform for US research and development bases of 250 US high tech giants (e.g., Nvidia, Intel, Google, Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Applied Materials, IBM, Philips, Apple). These Israeli-based research and development centers have played a key role in enhancing the US’ global technological edge, increasing US exports and expanding US employment.
*Unlike European allies of the US – whose strategic cooperation depends on the Left/Right ideology of the government and domestic public opinion – a vast majority of Israel’s constituency and political establishment has been unconditionally pro-US, irrespective of Left/Right governments in Jerusalem and independent of DEM or GOP presidency in Washington.
*Moreover, European ideology, perception of national interests and public opinion could slow/limit support for specific US-led military operations, especially those outside Europe, or involving high military risk. Contrary to the overwhelming support in Israel for strategic cooperation with the US, European support is not automatic or homogeneous.
*Right-of-Center European governments tend to underscore their unilateral national interests, tending to align strategically with the US. On the other hand, Left-of-Center European governments tend to highlight a multilateral (cosmopolitan) common denominator with the European Union, the (anti-Western) UN and (anti-Western) international organizations, demonstrating skepticism toward US military initiatives.
*The 1991 First Gulf War highlighted the limited support of the US by some NATO allies, which restricted their involvement to funding, rather than dispatching any military personnel. The current war on Islamic terrorism has exposed NATO’s reluctance to fully-support the US, lending credence to a contention, by many US Generals, that NATO stands for No Action Talk Only.
*Notwithstanding their frequent reservations about the US’ military initiatives, European countries are anxious about the possibility of a significant reduction in the US military presence in Europe, which may jeopardize regional and global stability.
The bottom line
Unlike all other US allies, Israel produces an annual R-o-I (Return-on-Investment) of at least a few hundred percent on the annual US investment of $3.8bn, which is misperceived as “foreign aid.” Israel, the pro-active US ally, carries out ground-breaking military operations,and performs as the Battle-Tested-Laboratory, Innovation Center and Showroom of the US defense and aerospace industries, as well as the US Armed Forces. Israel has spared the US defense industries many years of research and development, which amounts to mega billions of dollars increasing US exports, expanding US employment and upgrading US battle tactics.
The Holiest Hatred BY ADAM LOUIS-KLEIN
August 20, 2025
Since medieval times, antisemitism has cloaked itself in righteousness. Today’s anti-Zionism is the latest passion play—with Jews once again cast as the villains, and those who want them dead as the redeemers.
Antisemitism has always called itself justice. In some sense, we shouldn’t be surprised. For centuries, it has cloaked itself in sentimentalism and lofty ideals of humanity, framing itself not as malice but as moral necessity. Not as a descent into barbarism, but as the coming of redemption.
In Christian Europe, this meant opposing the love and compassion of Jesus to the supposed cruelty of the Jews—the killers of children, the enemies of grace. Medieval passion plays showed Jews as villains so that violence against them could feel like a defense of love itself. Luther’s On the Jews and Their Lies was not written as a confession of hate, but as a call to “defend” Christendom from the spiritual rot of stubborn unbelief. Jews were cast as cold, legalistic, spiritually barren—bound to the letter of the law rather than its spirit. It was moral theater, not merely prejudice.
Enlightenment antisemitism followed the same pattern. Jews were accused not only of wickedness but also of failing to rise to the universal ideals of reason and emancipation. As Steven Fine and Philip Spencer show in Antisemitism and the Left, the Enlightenment’s appeal to liberty, equality, and justice was only sometimes an “inclusive universalism” capable of valuing the persistence of distinct peoples. At other times, it was deeply “exclusionary,” universal in name only, made coherent by casting the Jew as its constitutive exception.
Anti-Zionism is now woven into the worldview of Western elites, which frames the expulsion of the Jewish state from the community of nations not as a tragic necessity, but as a redemptive consummation.
This was the logic of the Jewish question—now revived as the Israel question—in which Jews are cast as a danger to humanity, their “right to exist” framed as contingent and temporary. In this frame, Jews are seen as a negative foil and shadow for Gentile anxieties rather than a positively existing people with a robust civilization of their own. The debates over Jewish existence are often conducted by non-Jews, with Jews standing in as symbols for someone else’s rights, privileges, and projections.
Today, the left draws on the ideals of exclusionary universalism to purge Jews from their spaces, once again accusing Jews of being too particular, too stubborn, too committed to their own inheritance. That Jews have an ethnostate is cast as a moral scandal—despite the existence of dozens of Arab and Muslim ethnostates that provoke no such outrage. Jewish difference, uniquely, is framed as a crime.
Nietzsche, too, wrote vividly about the affects, discursive maneuvers, and sentimentality of the antisemites of his day. He poured out his scorn upon the early German Romantic antisemites—figures like Wagner—whose syrupy morality masked a deep, festering resentment. Wagner’s Judaism in Music spoke of Jews as corruptors of art and enemies of “authentic feeling,” with language draped in the finery of cultural rescue.
That moral aestheticism paved the way for what would follow. We see echoes of it today in the keffiyeh-clad activist cosplaying the romanticized Indigenous victim while denouncing Jewish survival as oppression. The New York Times treats Mahmoud Khalil as an eloquent spokesperson for Palestinian rights, despite his endorsement of the Oct. 7 genocide. It’s a performance—a pseudo-revolutionary theater of grievance—that feeds off the same resentment Nietzsche diagnosed, dressed now in the language of postcolonialism and solidarity.
Anti-Zionism today is not, in any meaningful sense, a contentful position in the space of reason. It is a creed. Anti-Zionism begins with a single article of faith—that Israel is essentially evil—and no fact can breach that belief. Every libel against Israel is not merely plausible but imbued with special gravity, for it confirms the dogma. Circulating the libel becomes a ritual act, a reenactment of faith.
When substance runs thin, it is supplied by the priestly class of anti-Israel “experts”—the human-rights functionaries and academic settler-colonial theorists—forever refining the language of accusation, composing new gospels of guilt. In the culminating gesture of this liturgy, they raise the suffering Palestinian as an icon, crucifying him again and again in expiation for the sins of colonialism.
The libels themselves acquire a pulse, an energy. They move from person to person, amplified by the crowd’s rhythm—each repetition giving the speaker a rush of virtue, compounded by the thrill of dominance over the scapegoated minority. Unconscious historical and political forces make this possible, but in the moment, it seems like participation in something larger, righteous, and pure. As Hannah Arendt understood, the priestly elites and the mob join hands here, the jargon and the attack dogs (now bots) fusing into a single machinery of condemnation.
We should think deeply about the aesthetics of anti-Zionist ritual—about how much it owes to the liturgical imagination of Christian Europe, where the sacred victim is elevated for adoration and the scapegoat is driven back into exile. Christ is paraded before the crowd in agony, while the Jew is cast out as the enemy of love.
In the anti-Zionist moral cosmology, the “suffering Palestinian” has become the consecrated victim whose pain redeems the sins of empire, while the Jew, displaced from that role, is rendered the contaminant to be expelled. This figure functions as the key symbol through which anti-Zionism unifies all the world’s evils into its constructed image of “Israel,” the source of all wrong. The claim that Jesus was Palestinian is not only a silly anachronism. It’s also a symbolic anchor.
Like the coming together of two rivers, the Islamist figure of the shahid— the martyr, suicide bomber, and human shield—now flows seamlessly into the icon of the Palestinian Christ, until West and East resonate together in one shared cult of death.
These symbols, tropes, and rhetorics form the backbone of anti-Zionist ideology: its sacrament of accusation, its passion play rewritten for the age of NGOs, academic conferences, and algorithmic amplification. Anti-Zionism has gone institutional, now woven into the worldview of Western elites, which frames the expulsion of the Jewish state from the community of nations not as a tragic necessity, but as a redemptive consummation—proof that the world still knows how to purify itself through pogroms and revolution.
And yet, despite this emerging megastructure of institutional anti-Zionism, its adherents have immunized themselves against recognizing their majoritarian power over Jews, through a familiar conspiratorial reversal: the Jew no longer as a vulnerable minority, but as the symbol of global domination. The more Jews are imagined as “powerful,” the more powerful the accuser feels in attacking them. It is a transference of strength. The blandest bigotry, the erosion of all decent standards, and that raw commitment to believing the libels—these are enough to turn resentment into sanctimony, envy into enlightenment.
During the campus riots of 2023 to 2024, activists marshaled the aesthetics of protest as “dissent,” acting out the conspiracy that “Zionists” control universities and governments in the very performance of protesting against the Jews. The result is freedom of speech for the Gentiles, but not for Jews, who are met instead with social ostracism, exclusion, and the demand to renounce their collective identity. School rules, and liberal principles, break like dams in the face of anti-Zionism’s energetic floods of accusation.
Antisemitism-as-justice is raw power with a humanitarian face. It is the stirrings of totalitarianism and the flouting of the law, coded in the language of law, now jammed into academic settler-colonial theory’s jargon of libel. Legal and moral evaluations are cast aside, irrelevant before the fixed drama that casts the Jew as the genocidal settler and the Palestinian as the natural force of Indigenous resistance. Once the roles are set, every outcome is already decided. The show trial of the Jew is set.
So yes, the “humanitarians” may be seething with bitterness and corrosive envy—but they believe themselves righteous. In this respect, nothing has changed. The medieval priest defending Christ from the enemies of love itself, the Enlightenment reformer purging the stubborn particularist from the universal order, the Romantic moralist rescuing culture from aesthetic corruption—all saw themselves as defenders of justice. Anti-Zionism inherits the same role, transposed into the register of human rights and international law while destroying their foundations in the process.
When hatred wears the robes of justice, it is immune to moral appeal. It will always claim the higher ground because the hate itself is the proof of one’s virtue. It will call itself a critique, and you will be the defendant on trial.
That is what makes this antisemitism of righteousness so persistent and so dangerous: It not only distorts the truth about Jews but also corrodes the very space in which truth and justice could be spoken at all.
Adam Louis-Klein is a PhD candidate in anthropology at McGill University, where he researches antisemitism, Zionism, Jewish peoplehood, and broader questions of indigeneity and historical narrative.
