RSS
More Attacks Like the Embassy Murders and CO Firebombing Are Coming Unless We Change Our Anti-Terror Strategy
Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim who were shot and killed as they left an event at the Capital Jewish Museum, pose for a picture at an unknown location, in this handout image released by Embassy of Israel to the US on May 22, 2025. Photo: Embassy of Israel to the USA via X/Handout via REUTERS
On May 21, 2025, Elias Rodriguez approached two Israeli embassy staffers outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C., and murdered them in cold blood. Just hours earlier, he had posted a 900-word manifesto online that justified violent political “escalation” in the name of Gaza, framed the impending attack as legitimate protest, and called for more “armed demonstrations.”
Less than two weeks later, Mohamed Sabry Soliman, an Egyptian national living illegally in the US, set several pro-Israel demonstrators on fire near a mall in Boulder, CO. Twelve people were injured, including several elderly participants and a Holocaust survivor. Soliman later admitted to targeting “Zionist people” and claimed that he had planned the attack for over a year.
While these incidents differed in method (one attacker used a gun, the other a flamethrower) and in communication strategy (one published a manifesto, the other did not), both represent not just failures of intelligence, but failures of imagination. These attacks expose outdated methods for tracking threats, systems that fail to account for the role of radicalized language in the digital age, and social media platforms’ reluctance to share critical data necessary to detect and address these risks.
For decades, counterterrorism has focused almost exclusively on tracking networks: chatter between suspects, coordinated plots, and ties to extremist groups. These threats are real, but today’s most urgent danger comes from individuals radicalized in isolation, often online. They don’t need a group or a leader. They don’t signal affiliation or send encrypted messages. Instead, they broadcast their ideology openly.
Rodriguez and Soliman fit this pattern. Neither was a member of a known extremist group, nor did they use ciphers or communicate surreptitiously on back-channel applications. Rodriguez’s manifesto was a clear, public statement of intent to carry out an attack, while Soliman’s attack was driven by over a year of ideological hatred. Both follow a pattern seen in other lone-actor attacks like Pittsburgh (2018), Christchurch (2019), and Halle (2019). In each of these tragedies, the manifesto or incitement was discovered only after the killings. Each time, we promised to learn — but each time, we missed the same signals.
These attacks were also a byproduct of obsolete detection methods. While enormous resources go into tracking invisible networks, far too little attention is paid to what is being said online and in person — the words and sentences that reflect dangerous ideologies. Violent extremists often use dehumanizing language to justify murder, but their rhetoric is often dismissed as mere speech (and protected speech, at that).
Rodriguez’s manifesto was ignored until after the violence occurred. Soliman’s attack, while not preceded by a written screed, was the result of sustained ideological incitement. Still, each case demonstrates why we cannot continue to treat incitement as just noise. Dangerous fantasies of “resistance” and glorified violence circulate online every day, often unchecked and without consequence.
Further complicating the matter are online platforms that continue to restrict access to the very data that researchers, civil society, and policymakers rely on to monitor and prevent these threats. Under the guise of protecting privacy or free speech, they enable opacity. People are getting hurt — and dying — as a result.
Make no mistake: free speech and privacy are essential to any democracy. However, these ideals become untenable when they shield violent content, allowing it to spread unchecked. The belief that all speech is equal and non-predictive is naive. History has shown us that hate speech often precedes violence. From the Holocaust to Rwanda, we know that such rhetoric prepares the ground for action.
In a world where lone-actor violence is escalating, and incitement to violence is more openly visible than ever, the solution is multifaceted. We must change the way we listen by investing in systems and disciplines that can analyze not just slurs or buzzwords, but ideological narratives, dehumanizing metaphors, and escalating rhetoric. This includes AI capable of detecting patterns, and fields like psycholinguistics and discourse analysis, which examine radicalization as a communicative process, not just a network-based phenomenon.
We can achieve this while striking the right balance between free speech and public safety. By prioritizing the content of speech over the identity of the speaker, we can monitor threats while upholding the same legal standard we apply offline, where speech is protected until it becomes a credible, imminent threat. At that point, the state not only has the right — but the obligation — to act.
Rodriguez told us what he was going to do. His words were public, unencrypted, and visible for all to see. Soliman’s attack, though not preceded by a manifesto, was the result of ideological incitement. In each case, we failed to act.
If we continue relying on antiquated tracking methods, treating hate speech as background noise, and looking the other way as platforms restrict the very data we need to track incitement, we will remain blind to the threats emerging right in front of us. We need to listen differently, adapt our methods, and invest in the right tools before the next manifesto becomes another obituary.
Matthias J. Becker is a visiting fellow at the Tel Aviv Institute and leads Decoding Antisemitism at the University of Cambridge.
The post More Attacks Like the Embassy Murders and CO Firebombing Are Coming Unless We Change Our Anti-Terror Strategy first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
US Envoy Says Israel Should ‘Comply’ With Lebanon Plan to Disarm Hezbollah
US Ambassador to Turkey and US special envoy for Syria Thomas Barrack speaks after meeting with Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, in Beirut, Lebanon July 21, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir
Top US envoy Thomas Barrack said on Monday Israel should comply with a plan under which Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah would be disarmed by the end of the year in exchange for a halt to Israel‘s military operations in Lebanon.
The plan sets out a phased roadmap for armed groups to hand in their arsenals as Israel‘s military halts ground, air, and sea operations and withdraws troops from Lebanon‘s south.
Lebanon‘s cabinet approved the plan‘s objectives earlier this month despite Iran-backed Hezbollah’s refusal to disarm, and Barrack said it was now Israel‘s turn to cooperate.
“There’s always a step-by-step approach, but I think the Lebanese government has done their part. They’ve taken the first step. Now what we need is Israel to comply with that equal handshake,” Barrack told reporters in Lebanon after meeting Lebanese President Joseph Aoun.
Barrack described the cabinet decree as a “Lebanese decision that requires Israel‘s cooperation” and said the United States was “in the process of now discussing with Israel what their position is” but provided no further details.
Under phase 1 of the plan, which was seen by Reuters, the Lebanese government would issue a decision committing to Hezbollah’s full disarmament by the end of the year and Israel would cease military operations in Lebanese territory.
But Israel has continued strikes against Lebanon in the weeks since the cabinet approved the plan.
In a written statement after his meeting with Barrack, Aoun said that “other parties” now needed to commit to the roadmap’s contents.
Calls for Hezbollah to disarm have mounted since a war with Israel last year killed 5,000 of the group’s fighters and much of its top brass and left swathes of southern Lebanon in ruins.
But the group has resisted the pressure, refusing to discuss its arsenal until Israel ends its strikes and withdraws troops from southern Lebanon.
On Friday, Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem raised the specter of civil war, warning there would be “no life” in Lebanon should the state attempt to confront or eliminate the group.
RSS
Hamas Accepts Proposed Deal for Ceasefire With Israel and Hostage Release, Egyptian Source Says
A displaced Palestinian man fleeing northern Gaza gestures atop a vehicle loaded with belongings while he heads south as the Israeli military prepares to relocate residents to the southern part of the enclave, in Gaza City, Aug. 18, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Mahmoud Issa
Hamas has accepted the latest proposal for a 60-day ceasefire with Israel that includes the return of half the hostages the terrorist group holds in Gaza and Israel‘s release of some Palestinian prisoners, an Egyptian official source said on Monday.
Senior Hamas official Basem Naim wrote on Facebook: “The movement has handed over its approval to the new proposal presented by the mediators.”
There was no immediate response from Israel.
The Egyptian official source said the latest proposal included a suspension of Israeli military operations for 60 days and a path to a comprehensive deal to end the nearly two-year war.
A source familiar with the matter said the proposal was nearly identical to one put forward previously by US special envoy Steve Witkoff, which Israel had accepted.
Israel‘s plans to seize control of Gaza City have stirred alarm abroad and at home where tens of thousands of Israelis on Sunday held some of the largest protests since the war began, urging a deal to end the fighting and free the remaining 50 hostages held in Gaza since the Hamas attack on Oct. 7, 2023. Israeli officials believe 20 are alive.
The planned offensive has spurred Egyptian and Qatari ceasefire mediators to step up efforts to forge a deal.
Thousands of Palestinians fearing an imminent Israeli ground offensive have left their homes in eastern areas of Gaza City, now under Israeli bombardment, for points to the west and south in the shattered territory.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has described Gaza City as Hamas‘s last big urban bastion. But, with Israel already holding 75 percent of Gaza, the military has warned that expanding the offensive could endanger hostages still alive and draw troops into protracted and deadly guerrilla warfare.
Dani Miran, whose son Omri was taken hostage on Oct. 7, said he feared the consequences of an Israeli ground offensive in Gaza City. “I’m scared that my son would be hurt,” he told Reuters in Tel Aviv on Monday.
In Gaza City, many Palestinians have also been calling for protests to demand an end to a war that has demolished much of the territory, and for Hamas to intensify talks to avert the Israeli ground offensive.
An Israeli armored incursion into Gaza City could displace hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom have been uprooted multiple times during the war.
Ahmed Mheisen, Palestinian shelter manager in Beit Lahiya, a war-devastated suburb abutting eastern Gaza City, said 995 families had departed the area in recent days for the south.
A protest by unions is scheduled for Thursday in Gaza City, and people took to social media platforms vowing to participate, which will raise pressure on Hamas.
DIPLOMATIC DEADLOCK
The last round of indirect ceasefire talks ended in deadlock in late July with the sides trading blame for its collapse. Israel and the US both recalled their negotiators from the talks in Qatar, with Witkoff saying at the time that Hamas had not been acting in good faith and “clearly shows a lack of desire” to reach a deal.
Israel says it will agree to cease hostilities if all the hostages are released and Hamas lays down its arms – the latter demand publicly rejected by the Islamist group until a Palestinian state is established.
A Hamas official told Reuters earlier on Monday the terrorist group rejects Israeli demands to disarm or expel its leaders from Gaza.
Sharp differences also appear to remain over the extent of an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and how humanitarian aid will be delivered around the enclave.
US President Donald Trump wrote on his social media platform on Monday: “We will only see the return of the remaining hostages when Hamas is confronted and destroyed!!! The sooner this takes place, the better the chances of success will be.”
On Saturday, the Israeli military said it was preparing to help equip Gazans with tents and other shelter equipment ahead of relocating them from combat zones to the south of the enclave. It did not provide further details on quantities or how long it would take to get the equipment into the enclave.
The war began when Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists stormed across the border into southern Israel, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages back to Gaza.
Israel responded with a military campaign aimed at freeing the hostages and dismantling Hamas’s military and governing power in the enclave.
RSS
The Sacred and the Subverted: Resisting the Weaponization of Faith Against Israel’s Right to Exist
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
In a world that is increasingly polarized, few tactics are as dangerous as the deliberate perversion of sacred texts to undermine legitimate national existence and justify political agendas.
This disturbing trend is particularly evident in the ongoing efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel, often leveraging the Christian faith to do so. From the outright fabrications peddled by figures like Nun Agapia to certain theological interpretations that inadvertently — or even directly — question Israel’s very foundations, this campaign demands a robust and principled counter-argument. It’s time to expose how the Christian faith is being weaponized, not only by outright anti-Zionists, but sometimes even by those within the Church who, perhaps unintentionally, give succor to such narratives.
Consider the recent spectacle of Orthodox Nun Agapia Stephanopoulos on Tucker Carlson’s program.
Dressed in the robes of spiritual authority, she spun a narrative rife with historical falsehoods and theological distortions. Her claims of Palestinians as unique “Canaanite descendants” and the “first Christians” are not merely inaccurate; they are calculated fabrications designed to strip away the millennia-long, unbroken Jewish connection to the Land of Israel.
This narrative isn’t about historical truth; it’s about manufacturing a theological supersessionism, implying that Christian claims somehow negate or outweigh Jewish indigeneity and self-determination in their ancestral homeland. This is weaponization: taking a faith tradition and twisting its tenets to serve an overtly political, anti-Zionist agenda.
This problematic trend extends to how some Christian scholars interpret Biblical texts in the context of the modern Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Take, for instance, Father David Neuhaus, a German-Israeli Jesuit priest, in his recent L’Osservatore Romano article, “Leggere la Bibbia dopo la distruzione di Gaza.”
Father Neuhaus grapples with the agonizing question of how Christians should read Biblical passages that speak of conquest or judgment. He specifically criticizes the use of texts like Deuteronomy 20:16-17 or the Amalek passage by figures like David Ben-Gurion and Benjamin Netanyahu, asserting they constitute a “dangerous biblicism” that can “promote war and hatred” and legitimize military actions or dispossession.
While Father Neuhaus’s Christian conscience may lead him to question certain interpretations, his critique, by linking Israeli leaders’ use of Biblical references to concepts of “dispossession” and “dangerous biblicism,” unwittingly feeds into narratives that undermine Israel’s historical and theological legitimacy. It implies that the deep, covenantal bond between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel, as understood and articulated by Jewish leaders, is somehow problematic or even a misuse of scripture when applied to modern national self-determination.
Such a perspective risks placing a Christian lens above Jewish self-understanding of their own foundational texts and national aspirations. It fails to adequately distinguish between modern political actions and the millennia-old, unbroken spiritual, and historical claim of the Jewish people to their homeland, a claim rooted in the very same Biblical narratives.
The core issue isn’t whether modern nations should live by ancient laws of war, which they clearly do not. It’s the implicit suggestion that a Jewish understanding of their historical and Biblical ties to the land, expressed by their leaders, is inherently “dangerous” when it pertains to their national rebirth and defense. This interpretation, while perhaps well-intentioned from a Christian perspective, can inadvertently echo the very arguments used by those who seek to deny Israel’s fundamental right to exist. It opens the door for anti-Zionist Christian movements to further weaponize their faith by claiming that Israel’s very existence, particularly its defense of its borders, is somehow contrary to divine will or proper Biblical understanding.
These anti-Zionist groups employ a perverse form of “replacement theology” — often cloaked in social justice rhetoric — that argues the Church has superseded the Jewish people, thereby nullifying God’s covenant with Israel and, by extension, its modern re-establishment. They take the nuanced, often challenging, Biblical narrative of a particular people’s covenant and twist it into a universalistic dismissal of Jewish national aspirations. They don’t merely critique Israeli policies; they systematically dismantle the theological foundations for Israel’s legitimacy in the eyes of their Christian followers.
The implications for societies and interfaith relations are dire. This weaponization of Christian faith fosters deep distrust between Jews and Christians, undermining decades of good-faith interfaith dialogue. It provides moral cover for those who advocate for Israel’s dismantling, transforming political animosity into a religiously sanctioned imperative. It emboldens antisemitism by clothing ancient prejudices in modern theological language, painting Jews as occupiers or oppressors defying divine will. And it deeply wounds the vast majority of Christians worldwide who stand in genuine solidarity with Israel, recognizing its historical, Biblical, and democratic significance.
For all who value truth, justice, and the integrity of faith, the task ahead is clear and urgent. There must be an unequivocal rejection of the ideological hijacking of sacred texts for political ends, whether those ends are to deny national self-determination or to demonize a nation. It is crucial to firmly challenge interpretations, even from well-meaning scholars, that inadvertently undermine the Jewish people’s unique and enduring connection to their land. The sacred bond between the Jewish people and their land, affirmed throughout scripture, must be understood and respected on its own terms. The Christian faith, at its best, is a source of profound love, compassion, and reconciliation. It must never be perverted into a destructive force, manipulated to deny the legitimate aspirations and very existence of the Jewish State.
Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx