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 These attacks expose outdated methods for tracking threats, systems that fail to account for the role of radicalized language in the digital age, and social media platforms’ reluctance to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
Hamas Warns Against Cooperation with US Relief Efforts In Bid to Restore Grip on Gaza
Hamas terrorists carry grenade launchers at the funeral of Marwan Issa, a senior Hamas deputy military commander who was killed in an Israeli airstrike during the conflict between Israel and Hamas, in the central Gaza Strip, Feb. 7, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ramadan Abed
The Hamas-run Interior Ministry in Gaza has warned residents not to cooperate with the US- and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, as the terror group seeks to reassert its grip on the enclave amid mounting international pressure to accept a US-brokered ceasefire.
“It is strictly forbidden to deal with, work for, or provide any form of assistance or cover to the American organization (GHF) or its local or foreign agents,” the Interior Ministry said in a statement Thursday.
“Legal action will be taken against anyone proven to be involved in cooperation with this organization, including the imposition of the maximum penalties stipulated in the applicable national laws,” the statement warns.
The GHF released a statement in response to Hamas’ warnings, saying the organization has delivered millions of meals “safely and without interference.”
“This statement from the Hamas-controlled Interior Ministry confirms what we’ve known all along: Hamas is losing control,” the GHF said.
The GHF began distributing food packages in Gaza in late May, implementing a new aid delivery model aimed at preventing the diversion of supplies by Hamas, as Israel continues its defensive military campaign against the Palestinian terrorist group.
The initiative has drawn criticism from the UN and international organizations, some of which have claimed that Jerusalem is causing starvation in the war-torn enclave.
Israel has vehemently denied such accusations, noting that, until its recently imposed blockade, it had provided significant humanitarian aid in the enclave throughout the war.
Israeli officials have also said much of the aid that flows into Gaza is stolen by Hamas, which uses it for terrorist operations and sells the rest at high prices to Gazan civilians.
According to their reports, the organization has delivered over 56 million meals to Palestinians in just one month.
Hamas’s latest threat comes amid growing international pressure to accept a US-backed ceasefire plan proposed by President Donald Trump, which sets a 60-day timeline to finalize the details leading to a full resolution of the conflict.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump announced that Israel has agreed to the “necessary conditions” to finalize a 60-day ceasefire in Gaza, though Israel has not confirmed this claim.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to meet with Trump next week in Washington, DC — his third visit in less than six months — as they work to finalize the terms of the ceasefire agreement.
Even though Trump hasn’t provided details on the proposed truce, he said Washington would “work with all parties to end the war” during the 60-day period.
“I hope, for the good of the Middle East, that Hamas takes this Deal, because it will not get better — IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE,” he wrote in a social media post.
Since the start of the war, ceasefire talks between Jerusalem and Hamas have repeatedly failed to yield enduring results.
Israeli officials have previously said they will only agree to end the war if Hamas surrenders, disarms, and goes into exile — a demand the terror group has firmly rejected.
“I am telling you — there will be no Hamas,” Netanyahu said during a speech Wednesday.
For its part, Hamas has said it is willing to release the remaining 50 hostages — fewer than half of whom are believed to be alive — in exchange for a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and an end to the war.
While the terrorist group said it is “ready and serious” to reach a deal that would end the war, it has yet to accept this latest proposal.
In a statement, the group said it aims to reach an agreement that “guarantees an end to the aggression, the withdrawal [of Israeli forces], and urgent relief for our people in the Gaza Strip.”
According to media reports, the proposed 60-day ceasefire would include a partial Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, a surge in humanitarian aid, and the release of the remaining hostages held by Hamas, with US and mediator assurances on advancing talks to end the war — though it remains unclear how many hostages would be freed.
For Israel, the key to any deal is the release of most, if not all, hostages still held in Gaza, as well as the disarmament of Hamas, while the terror group is seeking assurances to end the war as it tries to reassert control over the war-torn enclave.
The post Hamas Warns Against Cooperation with US Relief Efforts In Bid to Restore Grip on Gaza first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
UK Lawmakers Move to Designate Palestine Action as Terrorist Group Following RAF Vandalism Protest
Police block a street as pro-Palestinian demonstrators gather to protest British Home Secretary Yvette Cooper’s plans to proscribe the “Palestine Action” group in the coming weeks, in London, Britain, June 23, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Jaimi Joy
British lawmakers voted Wednesday to designate Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, following the group’s recent vandalizing of two military aircraft at a Royal Air Force base in protest of the government’s support for Israel.
Last month, members of the UK-based anti-Israel group Palestine Action broke into RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, a county west of London, and vandalized two Voyager aircraft used for military transport and refueling — the latest in a series of destructive acts carried out by the organization.
Palestine Action has regularly targeted British sites connected to Israeli defense firm Elbit Systems as well as other companies in Britain linked to Israel since the start of the conflict in Gaza in 2023.
Under British law, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has the authority to ban an organization if it is believed to commit, promote, or otherwise be involved in acts of terrorism.
Passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 385 to 26 in the lower chamber — the House of Commons — the measure is now set to be reviewed by the upper chamber, the House of Lords, on Thursday.
If approved, the ban would take effect within days, making it a crime to belong to or support Palestine Action and placing the group on the same legal footing as Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the Islamic State under UK law.
Palestine Action, which claims that Britain is an “active participant” in the Gaza conflict due to its military support for Israel, condemned the ban as “an unhinged reaction” and announced plans to challenge it in court — similar to the legal challenges currently being mounted by Hamas.
Under the Terrorism Act 2000, belonging to a proscribed group is a criminal offense punishable by up to 14 years in prison or a fine, while wearing clothing or displaying items supporting such a group can lead to up to six months in prison and/or a fine of up to £5,000.
Palestine Action claimed responsibility for the recent attack, in which two of its activists sprayed red paint into the turbine engines of two Airbus Voyager aircraft and used crowbars to inflict additional damage.
According to the group, the red paint — also sprayed across the runway — was meant to symbolize “Palestinian bloodshed.” A Palestine Liberation Organization flag was also left at the scene.
On Thursday, local authorities arrested four members of the group, aged between 22 and 35, who were charged with conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK, as well as conspiracy to commit criminal damage.
Palestine Action said this latest attack was carried out as a protest against the planes’ role in supporting what the group called Israel’s “genocide” in Gaza.
At the time of the attack, Cooper condemned the group’s actions, stating that their behavior had grown increasingly aggressive and resulted in millions of pounds in damages.
“The disgraceful attack on Brize Norton … is the latest in a long history of unacceptable criminal damage committed by Palestine Action,” Cooper said in a written statement.
“The UK’s defense enterprise is vital to the nation’s national security and this government will not tolerate those that put that security at risk,” she continued.
The post UK Lawmakers Move to Designate Palestine Action as Terrorist Group Following RAF Vandalism Protest first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
US-backed Gaza Relief NGO Vows ‘Legal Action’ Against AP Claim Group Fired on Palestinian Civilians
Palestinians collect aid supplies from the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, in Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip, June 9, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Hatem Khaled
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a US-backed nonprofit operating aid distribution centers in the Gaza Strip, is pushing back forcefully against an Associated Press report alleging that its contractors opened fire on Palestinian civilians.
The GHF is accusing the AP of withholding key evidence and relying on a “disgruntled former contractor” as a central source.
“In response, we are pursuing legal action,” the organization said in a statement released Wednesday.
GHF said it conducted an “immediate investigation” after being contacted by the AP, reviewing time-stamped video footage and sworn witness testimony. The group concluded that the allegations were “categorically false,” stating that no civilians were fired upon at any of their distribution sites and that the gunfire heard in the AP’s video came from Israeli forces operating outside the vicinity.
“What is most troubling is that the AP refused to share the full video with us prior to publication, despite the seriousness of the allegations,” the statement read. “If they believed their own reporting, they should have provided us with the footage so we could take immediate and appropriate action.”
The nonprofit’s public rebuttal raises sharp questions about the AP’s reporting process, suggesting the outlet declined to engage with the organization in good faith and instead leaned on a source GHF describes as having been terminated “for misconduct” weeks prior. The group also claimed the AP’s recent coverage of its activities had begun to “echo narratives advanced by the Hamas-controlled Gaza Ministry of Health.”
The AP has not yet responded publicly to the GHF’s accusations or provided clarification about its decision not to share the video footage before publication. The original report alleged that American contractors employed by GHF had fired weapons near or toward civilians.
The GHF statement confirmed that a contractor seen shouting in the AP’s video had been removed from operations, though the group insisted this was unrelated to any violence and did not constitute evidence of wrongdoing.
GHF, which describes its mission as delivering food to Gaza “safely, directly, and without interference,” said it remains committed to transparency but would not allow its operations to be “derailed by misinformation.”
The dispute highlights the fraught information environment in Gaza, where limited access and competing narratives frequently complicate the verification of on-the-ground events.
The post US-backed Gaza Relief NGO Vows ‘Legal Action’ Against AP Claim Group Fired on Palestinian Civilians first appeared on Algemeiner.com.