RSS
Following Charlie Kirk’s Death, Jews Should Be at the Forefront of Defending Free Speech
A memorial is held for Charlie Kirk, who was shot and killed in Utah, at the Turning Point USA headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona, US, Sept. 10, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Caitlin O’Hara
There was a time, not long ago, when disagreement was something that Americans believed in. Not just tolerated, not just endured, but believed in. Debate was seen as the crucible of truth. A clash of ideas, a testing of convictions, a sign of a free people confident enough to confront each other with words. That time is receding fast. What is rising in its place is something far more dangerous.
Three events. Three different places. Three separate incidents of death.
On a university stage in Utah, Charlie Kirk is shot in the neck while speaking. On the steps of a Jewish museum in Washington, DC, two young diplomats are gunned down after a reception. On a pedestrian mall in Boulder, Colorado, a group of elderly Jews are attacked with fire while marching for hostages. They come from different places, but they belong to the same pattern: violence aimed not only at people but also at the ideas they represent. Together, they form a portrait of a society fraying at its edges, where ideological rage no longer waits for permission to act.
As of this writing, no suspect has yet been identified in Kirk’s killing, and no motive has been confirmed. But what cannot be denied is that a political figure was assassinated mid-conversation, on an American campus, in front of an audience, most likely for expressing mainstream views. This is not simply a personal loss or a moment of partisan outrage. It marks a rupture in the civic fabric — a killing carried out in the middle of a public forum, aimed not just at a man but at the act of speaking itself. It challenges the very assumption that we are still living in a society where speech, even if heated, is protected by something more than law, but by convention, by principle, by shared civic belief.
In Washington, the suspect, Elias Rodriguez, reportedly shouted “Free Palestine” as he opened fire on a young Israeli couple walking home from a diplomatic event. In Boulder, suspect Mohamed Soliman allegedly hurled homemade Molotov cocktails at Jewish activists, setting them alight while yelling the same phrase. These slogans are ideological claims made through violence and are attempts not to argue but to silence.
The American left and right are bitterly divided over many things. But this is not about left or right. It is about something deeper: whether one believes that speech is violence, or whether one still believes that speech is how violence is restrained; whether one thinks disagreement is dangerous, or essential; whether one can look at a speaker on stage and say: “I oppose everything he stands for, but he must be allowed to speak.” Like many of my contemporaries and friends who speak publicly on campuses, TV screens, and even in town squares, who write internationally on political and social issues, and who debate daily with those we disagree with, I know the importance of listening to others and protecting their safety even when their views and ideas are at odds with mine.
Charlie Kirk was many things: bold, intelligent, ideological. He was also a man who invited his opponents to challenge him, live, unfiltered, in public. He believed in the premise that truth emerges when ideas are contested openly. That belief cost him his life, and his murder cost us all something of our human civility.
When we are told that certain views are so harmful they cannot be spoken, that some identities are so vulnerable they cannot be criticized, that public speech must be constrained in order to protect public “safety,” we are being fed a logic that inverts liberty. And when taken to its limit, as it was on that stage in Utah, it replaces conversation with bloodshed and fear.
Jews, perhaps more than anyone, understand this pattern. It is one we have seen too many times before. The weaponization of ideology, the demonization of speech, the targeting of people for their beliefs. When Jewish people are firebombed in broad daylight in an American city for showing solidarity with those brutally kidnapped and tortured in captivity, something vital has already broken. When diplomats are murdered on American soil for the simple fact of being Israeli, that line is not being tested. It has already been crossed.
And when a public figure is murdered — possibly for his ideas, his religion, his support of Israel, or simply his refusal to remain silent — the connections become harder to ignore. The principle is the same: the belief that violence is a legitimate answer to speech, that murder is a form of rebuttal. This mindset is not formed in a vacuum. When university students chant for “intifada” and endorse “resistance by any means,” they help cultivate a culture in which violent responses to speech are seen as justifiable. The issues may differ, but the logic is the same: disagreement becomes a pretext for force.
This is not only a fight for Jews. But Jews have been among the first to suffer, and they know too well the pain that Charlie Kirk’s wife, children, fans, and followers are feeling. All decent people feel that pain now, not because they knew him, but because they see the absurdity of killing a man dedicated to the idea of open debate, free thinking, and listening to each other’s opinions.
The rest of us cannot respond with fear of speaking up. That is how terror and violence win. Charlie’s voice may have been silenced, but his message and his ethos must not be killed as well. While we cannot be parents to Charlie’s children, nor his wife’s partner and support, we can and must redouble our dedication to debate, discussion, and civility, to become the manifestation of his belief in reason, analysis, and discussion. Let us insist that America remains a place where people may speak, protest, argue, offend, and yes, even be wrong, without fearing that the price will be death.
Jonathan Sacerdoti, a writer and broadcaster, is now a contributor to The Algemeiner.
RSS
Tucker Carlson Launches Docuseries Exposing the ‘Truth’ About 9/11 After Previously Saying He ‘Hates’ 9/11 Truthers
Tucker Carlson speaks on July 18, 2024 during the final day of the Republican National Convention at the Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Photo: Jasper Colt-USA TODAY via Reuters Connect
Media personality Tucker Carlson announced late last month a new five-part documentary series supposedly exposing the “truth” about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, after previously saying he “hates” the 9/11 truther conspiracy theories about al Qaeda’s suicide attacks on US soil.
“For nearly 25 years, the true story on 9/11 has been withheld from the American people. Why? We decided to find out for ourselves,” Carlson, a popular right-wing podcaster, posted on X, announcing the documentary series.
The first episode of the series was released on Thursday, the 24th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks in which nearly 3,000 people were killed on US soil.
The announcement video claims that “the official story on 9/11 is a complete lie” and that “the 9/11 commission is a cover-up.” Carlson adds that “the 9/11 report is a joke.”
For nearly 25 years, the true story on 9/11 has been withheld from the American people. Why? We decided to find out for ourselves.
Get all 5 episodes of our documentary series at https://t.co/sLkXnGLauL on September 11. pic.twitter.com/ozRykv6vY8
— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) August 28, 2025
Carlson, a controversial commentator and online provocateur, claims that the documentary will expose what truly happened, including what the US and foreign governments knew in advance.
The line about foreign governments is said in the video while a picture of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu flashes across the screen, seemingly suggesting Israel was part of an alleged cover-up related to 9/11.
Carlson’s documentary was released just days after he said he would like to share “condolences” with the family of Osama bin Laden, the late al Qaeda leader who organized the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks
Video has also surfaced showing that Carlson previously suggested that those who spread conspiracy theories about 9/11 are “parasites.” He lambasted those who have claimed 9/11 was an inside job and said “there isn’t any” evidence to support the claim. Carlson also previously said he “hates” when people try to say 9/11 was some sort of cover-up, and that while he is open to theories about most events, those about 9/11 go too far.
Tucker Carlson Calls 9/11 Truthers “Parasites” pic.twitter.com/Cc4lOePGCG
— 𝕊𝕙𝕒𝕞𝕤 (@drandelson) March 11, 2023
Carlson has made a series of controversial comments in recent months, drawing criticism even from conservatives and Republicans.
For example, Carlson drew outrage for platforming Holocaust revisionist and self-described historian Darryl Cooper last year. During their discussion on his podcast, Cooper appeared to downplay the Holocaust, argued that the US was on the “wrong side” of World War II, and suggested that the slaughter of six million Jews in concentration camps was “humane” because the Nazis did not have food to feed the “prisoners of war.”
In December, Carlson invited economist Jeffrey Sachs onto his podcast for a lengthy interview in which both men gave credence to the idea that Israel “controls” US foreign policy. Another, more recent guest floated the idea the US should have allied with Nazi Germany during World War II, saying, “It turns out I think the story we got about World War II is all wrong … one can make the argument that we should have sided with Hitler and fought Stalin.”
Carlson has criticized Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza, repeatedly accusing the Jewish state of “blowing up churches and killing Christians.” He lambasted American Christian political leaders for “not being more critical of the destruction in Gaza.”
RSS
Antisemitic Graffiti Strikes New York University Days Into New Semester
Illustrative: A student puts on their anti-Israel graduation cap reading “From the river to the sea” at the People’s Graduation, hosted for Mahmoud Khalil and other students from New York University. Photo: Angelina Katsanis via Reuters Connect
An unknown person graffitied antisemitic messages inside the Weinstein residence hall at New York University on Tuesday evening, prompting school president Linda Mills to issue a statement condemning antisemitism and imploring students to uphold the institution’s values.
“The targeting of a Jewish student is inexcusable raw hatred,” Mills wrote in a letter, shared with The Algemeiner by NYU spokesman John Beckman, to the campus community. “As a campus we must speak with a single voice in condemning this act — a terrible violation of our community’s rules and norms. We are providing support to the victim.”
She added, “NYU has a zero-tolerance policy towards antisemitism and other forms of hatred …We are committed to maintaining a community where all feel safe and welcome, to eliminating antisemitism and other forms of hatred. We ask everyone to join us in this effort to uphold our values and send an unambiguous signal about the kind of behavior we won’t stand for in our community.”
Mills also said the incident is being investigated by the NYU’s Campus Safety officers and the New York City Police Department (NYPD).
According to Washington Square News, an independent student newspaper which first reported Tuesday’s incident, NYU had seen another antisemitic only days earlier when a Jewish student’s mezuzah was stolen and later “voluntarily returned” under circumstances the university has not disclosed.
New York University was one of the first major higher education institutions to reform its disciplinary code to respond to the Jewish community’s concerns about rising antisemitism.
In 2024, it updated its Non-Discrimination and Harassment Policy (NDAH), including in it language which identified “Zionist” as a racial dog whistle that sometimes conceals the antisemitic intent of speech and other conduct that denigrates and excludes Jews.
The updated NDAH listed numerous examples of the use of “Zionist” in perpetrating discriminatory behavior, including, “excluding Zionists from an open event, calling for the death of Zionists, applying a ‘no Zionist’ litmus test for participating in any NYU activity, using or disseminating tropes, stereotypes, and conspiracies about Zionists” as well as “demanding a person who is perceived to be Jewish or Israeli to state a position on Israel or Zionism, minimizing or denying the Holocaust, or invoking Holocaust imagery or symbols to harass or discriminate.”
NYU went further, recognizing that Zionism is central to the identities of the world’s roughly 15.7 million Jews, an overwhelming majority of whom believe the Jewish people were destined to return to their ancient homeland in the land of Israel after centuries of exile. “For many Jewish people, Zionism is a part of their Jewish identity. Speech and conduct that would violate the NDAH if targeting Jewish or Israeli people can also violate the NDAH if directed toward Zionists,” the university said.
The NDAH covered examples of behavior that have occurred across the US, both on and off college campuses, especially since the launch of the Israel-Hamas war in October 2023.
Last year, NYU paid an undisclosed sum of money to settle a lawsuit brought by three students who sued the school for responding, allegedly, to antisemitic discrimination “with deliberate indifference.”
In resolving the case, NYU avoided a lengthy civil trial which would have revealed precisely who and which office received but failed to address numerous reports that — according to the court documents filed in November 2023 — NYU students and faculty “repeatedly abuse, malign, vilify, and threaten Jewish students with impunity” and that “death to k—es” and “gas the Jews” were chanted by pro-Hamas supporters at the school.
In May of this year, however, university officials withheld the diploma of a graduating student at the Gallatin School of Individualized Study who lied to the administration about the content of his commencement speech to conceal its claim of a genocide taking place in Gaza, an anti-Israel falsehood propagated by neo-Nazi groups and jihadist terror organizations.
“NYU strongly denounces the choice by a student at the Gallatin School’s graduation today — one of over 20 school graduation ceremonies across our campus — to misuse his role as student speaker to express his personal and one-sided political views,” university spokesman John Beckman said in a statement at the time. “He lied about the speech he was going to deliver and violated the commitment he made to comply with our rules. The university is withholding his diploma while we pursue disciplinary actions.”
He continued, “NYU is deeply sorry that the audience was subjected to these remarks and this moment was stolen by someone who abused a privilege that was conferred upon him.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
RSS
Canada vs Israel Davis Cup Match in Halifax Will Be Closed to Fans Due to ‘Safety Concerns’
Israeli athletes competing in the Davis Cup 2025 Qualifiers Israel vs. Germany. Photo: IMAGO/Paul Zimmer via Reuters Connect
A series of Davis Cup World Group matches between Canada and Israel will be played this weekend in Halifax in a closed venue without any fans in attendance due to safety concerns, organizers announced Tuesday.
Tennis Canada said its decision to close off the Canada vs Israel matches on Friday and Saturday was made in consultation with the International Tennis Federation in light of “escalating safety concerns” by local authorities and national security agencies. The games were originally scheduled to take place at the Scotiabank Center, but it remains unclear if the venue is being changed. The series of matches will determine which country advances to the 2026 Davis Cup Qualifiers.
“Intelligence received from local authorities and national security agencies, combined with disruptions witnessed at other recent events both in Canada and internationally, indicated a risk of significant disruption to this event,” Tennis Canada explained. “Ensuring the safety of everyone involved, including athletes, fans, staff, volunteers, and minors, such as ball kids, remains our top priority.” Ticket holders will receive a full refund within 30 days.
Tennis Canada CEO Gavin Ziv said the “difficult decision” was made to maintain the organization’s “responsibility to protect people while ensuring that this Davis Cup tie can still take place.”
“We were forced to conclude that playing behind closed doors was the only way to both safeguard those involved and preserve the event itself,” Ziv explained. “While this outcome is very disappointing, it allows the tie to proceed in Halifax and ensures that our athletes can continue to compete at the highest international level. We are looking forward to returning to Halifax with Team Canada in the coming years to ensure we can fulfill our mission of promoting tennis and creating opportunities for fans and players to engage with the sport in Nova Scotia and across the country.”
Media will also not be allowed to attend the games. Halifax Regional Police did not say if the Israeli team received direct threats but noted that its local officers will be present at the games, according to the Associated Press. The tie will be broadcast on television on TVA Sports, and available for viewing online via CBC Sports’ livestream on CBC Gem, Cbcsports.ca, and the CBC Sports YouTube channel.
The Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs criticized the decision. “We all want to know: Are we a nation governed by peace, order, and good government? Or do we let fear and intimidation dictate our way of life?” CIJA wrote in a post on X.
“Cheering for Team Canada is part of what it means to be Canadian. Yet, a small group of extremists have hijacked the Davis Cup, silencing thousands of fans — many of whom traveled from afar — who simply wanted to show pride in their country,” CIJA CEO Noah Shack said in a separate statement. “Tennis Canada’s decision was made to protect Canadians in the face of serious threats. It is unacceptable that hate, harassment, and intimidation have made it unsafe to support our athletes in our own country.”
Tennis Canada faced pressure last month from hundreds of anti-Israel activists — including Canadian athletes and academics, and Olympic runner Moh Ahmed — to cancel the Davis Cup match-up with Israel because of its military actions in the Gaza Strip during the Israel-Hamas war. Both ITF and Tennis Canada insisted that Israel will not be banned from the competition.