RSS
‘We’ve Received Vile Antisemitic Slurs’: Justin Baldoni’s Publicists File Counter-Lawsuit Against Blake Lively

Justin Baldoni attends the ‘It Ends With Us’ premiere in New York City, US, Aug. 6, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Caitlin Ochs
Actor-director Justin Baldoni, his production company Wayfarer Studios, and his publicists, Jennifer Abel and Melissa Nathan, filed on Thursday a joint $400 million countersuit against actress Blake Lively, in part claiming they received “abhorrent abuse and vile antisemitic slurs” after Lively accused Baldoni of sexual harassment.
The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court of the Southern District of New York in response to Lively’s own lawsuit against Baldoni, his public relations team, and Wayfarer Studios that was filed last month. In her filing, Lively, 37, accused Baldoni, 40, of sexual harassment and “sexually inappropriate behavior” on the set of their recent film “It Ends With Us,” and his team of initiating “a coordinated effort to destroy her reputation.”
Baldoni directed “It Ends With Us” and also starred in the film alongside Lively. In the film, Lively plays a florist named Lily Bloom who faces domestic violence when she becomes romantically involved with Baldoni’s character, a Boston neurosurgeon named Ryle. Baldoni’s mother is from an Ashkenazi Jewish family with roots in Eastern Europe but he follows the Baháʼí faith.
In a joint statement given to The Algemeiner, Abel and Nathan explained their decision to join a counter-lawsuit against Lively after her own lawsuit in December. Their suit on Thursday also names Lively’s husband, “Deadpool” actor Ryan Reynolds, and Lively’s publicist as defendants.
“Over the last month we have received death threats, abhorrent abuse, and vile antisemitic slurs hurled at us due to her decision to use us as scapegoats for her own choices promoting her film in which she made millions of dollars,” Abel and Nathan said. “With this filing, we lift our own curtain of what happens when the entitled weaponize power, fear, and money to destroy, intimidate, and bully those who get in their way.”
Nathan is a crisis management expert and CEO and founder of The Agency Group (TAG) public relations firm, which has offices in Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, DC. Abel is the founder and CEO of RWA Communications, a public relations and media company based in Beverly Hills. She is Baldoni’s personal publicist.
In their joint statement, the two publicists also expressed frustration that they are “forced to answer this viciously selfish ongoing litigation littered with documented and provable lies in the midst of the tragedy impacting California where we reside.”
“Five months ago, Ms. Lively chose to promote a film about domestic violence in a way that caused instant negative and organic backlash due to her own highly publicized actions. Instead of accepting responsibility, she decided to cruelly blame us,” they added. “This malicious attack on private individuals by Ms. Lively and her team in which they chose to spoon feed The New York Times with doctored, out of context, and edited text messages in an effort to paint herself as a victim set off a chain of events that has been harmful beyond measure. To be clear, Ms. Lively and her team initiated this smear campaign in the media for the sole intention of gaining undeserved public sympathy for her own missteps.”
In their lengthy lawsuit on Thursday obtained by The Algemeiner, the plaintiffs claimed that Lively directed a “smear campaign” against them that was carried out by her team, and that she “concocted a fantastical narrative that laid the blame for her travails exactly where she believed it belonged — with others.”
“The ramifications of this scheme have been grave for Wayfarer, Baldoni, Abel, and Nathan, who became objects of public scorn and derision overnight,” the lawsuit stated. “Abel and Nathan, two private individuals (and female small business owners), have had their lives turned upside down: Their careers and reputations have been destroyed, their private information leaked, and their email inboxes and social media pages filled with a daily stream of death threats, abuse, and vile antisemitic remarks. The backlash against Wayfarer and Baldoni has been equally devastating, with Baldoni wrongfully labeled as a sex pest, his accolades rescinded, and his future projects thrown into doubt.”
The lawsuit on Thursday also addressed the accusations that Lively made in her own filing, including claims that Baldoni improvised unapproved and intimate scenes during filming “It Ends With Us,” used sexually inappropriate language on the film’s set, and talked with Lively about his experience with pornography. Lively also claimed in her lawsuit that Baldoni walked into her trailer uninvited while she was undressed, including when she was breastfeeding her baby, the youngest of her four children.
The plaintiffs in Thursday’s lawsuit sought to discredit all of Lively’s allegations. Discussing Lively’s claim that Baldoni walked into her trailer uninvited and while she was undressed, they said in their lawsuit, “the suggestion that this ever happened is illogical and categorically false.”
“No one would or did enter Lively’s trailer without knocking first and asking permission,” the lawsuit stated. “More than once, Lively invited Baldoni, [producer Jamey] Heath, and other producers into her trailer so that she could multi-task, understandably balancing motherhood with her work obligations. Regrettably, while accommodating Lively, Baldoni and Heath were led into situations that would later be characterized as harassment. Lively herself invited Baldoni to her trailer to “work on lines” while she pumped breast milk. Lively regularly breast-fed in front of Baldoni while they had meetings … Lively was not topless, as she claims elsewhere, but was fully covered while either nursing or pumping breast milk.”
Baldoni’s publicists also claimed that Lively’s publicist, Leslie Sloane, “devised and executed a smear campaign of her own against Baldoni,” and disseminated “false and defamatory stories” about Baldoni and Wayfarer.
Baldoni has been dropped by his talent agency WME because of Lively’s accusations.
The post ‘We’ve Received Vile Antisemitic Slurs’: Justin Baldoni’s Publicists File Counter-Lawsuit Against Blake Lively first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Striking Hamas Leaders in Qatar Is 100% Legal Under International Law

Vehicles stop at a red traffic light, a day after an Israeli attack on Hamas leaders, in Doha, Qatar, Sept. 10, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa
Here are just a few of the absurd reactions from world leaders in the wake of Israel’s stunning strike on Hamas leadership in Doha, Qatar, last week:
- A “blatant violation of international law.”
- A “violation of sovereignty.”
- A “flagrant breach of international law.”
France, Spain, the UK, the Qataris themselves, and others have joined in the hysterics.
Yet all these sloganizing leaders have one thing in common: an astonishing and total ignorance of actual, international law.
In future articles, I will dive into the far reaching implications and consequences of this stunning operation, but for now, here’s a quick review of international law.
- Qatar is not technically at war with Israel, therefore the country could be considered a “neutral power” under the Hague Convention V and thus immune from attack.
- However, under articles 2, 3 and 4 of Hague Convention V, a “neutral power” may not allow anyone on its territory to direct combat operations, run command and control centers, or even to communicate electronically with combatants.
- For years, the Hamas leadership has been carrying out exactly those prohibited acts from within Qatar — with sustained and integral Qatari support. In other words, Qatar has been violating international law for years — before, during, and after the October 7 massacre.
- Hamas is the internationally-designated terror organization that carried out the October 7 massacre of Israelis in 2023, and continues holding Israeli hostages in Gaza to this day. Though the Hamas leadership in Qatar claims the moniker “political wing,” it is consistently involved in directing combat operations against Israel.
- Qatar cannot claim to be a “neutral power” under the Hague Conventions, because it provides sustained and integral support for Hamas — which aids Hamas combat operations against Israel — from Qatari soil.
- Furthermore, Israel has an inviolate right to self defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, and Hamas may not undermine that right simply by directing its combat operations from inside a third-party country.
In summary: Qatar has been providing sustained and integral support for Hamas combat operations — from Qatari soil — in violation of The Hague conventions.
These acts give Israel the inviolate right, under both the Hague Conventions and the UN Charter’s Article 51, to defend itself and its citizens by targeting Hamas leadership inside Qatar.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking. He has been a lawyer for more than 25 years.
RSS
No, Mahmoud Abbas Did Not Condemn Jerusalem Terror Attack

People inspect a bus with bullet holes at the scene where a shooting terrorist attack took place at the outskirts of Jerusalem, Sept. 8, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad
Last week, terrorists opened fire in Jerusalem, murdering six and injuring 12 innocent Israelis.
Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas — the man the international community insists is a “peace partner” — then put out a statement that was labeled by much of the international media as a condemnation. In reality, it was anything but.
Abbas never once mentioned the terror attack. He never referred to the murders, never acknowledged the victims, and never expressed a word of sympathy for their families. His statement spoke in vague terms about rejecting “any targeting of Palestinian and Israeli civilians,” a formula carefully crafted to sound balanced while deliberately blurring the reality that it was Palestinians who carried out the terror attack, and Israelis who were its victims.
Worse still, 98% of Abbas’ statement was condemnation of Israel, the “occupation,” “genocide,” and “colonist terrorism.” Instead of using the attack to speak out against Palestinian terror, Abbas used it to criticize Israel without even actually mentioning the attack, and while portraying Palestinians as the victims.
Abbas’ remark is not a condemnation of terrorism. It is a cover-up. He is once again confirming the PA’s ideology that sees Palestinian attacks against Israeli civilians as justified.
The emptiness of Abbas’s words becomes glaring when compared to the response of the United Arab Emirates.
The UAE condemned the “terrorist shooting incident … in the strongest terms,” offered condolences to the victims and their families, and wished a speedy recovery to the wounded.
The UAE’s statement was clear, moral, and human. Abbas’ was political and self-serving, designed to enable gullible Westerners to delude themselves that Abbas was actually condemning terrorism. The UAE and Abbas’ statements follow. The difference speaks volumes.
UAE condemnation of terror | Mahmoud Abbas’ sham |
“The United Arab Emirates has condemned in the strongest terms the terrorist shooting incident which occurred near Jerusalem, and resulted in a number of deaths and injuries.
In a statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) reaffirmed the UAE’s strong condemnation of these terrorist acts and its permanent rejection of all forms of violence and terrorism aimed at undermining security and stability. The Ministry expressed its sincere condolences and sympathy to the families of the victims, and to the State of Israel and its people, as well as its wishes for a speedy recovery for all the injured.” [United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs, website, September 8, 2025] |
“The Palestinian Presidency reiterated its firm stance rejecting and condemning any targeting of Palestinian and Israel civilians, and denouced all forms of violence and terrorism, regardless of their source.
The Presidency stressed that security and stability in the region cannot be achieved without ending the occupation, halting acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip, and stopping colonist terrorism across the West Bank, including occupied Jerusalem. It emphasized the Palestinian people’s attainment of their legitimate rights to an independent and sovereign state with East Jerusalem as its capital, and the achievement of security and peace for all, is what wil end the cycle of violence in the region. This came in the wake of today’s events in occupied Jerusalem.” [WAFA, official PA news agency, September 8, 2025] |
Ephraim D. Tepler is a contributor to Palestinian Media Watch (PMW). Itamar Marcus is the Founder and Director of PMW, where a version of this article first appeared.
RSS
Carrying Charlie Kirk’s Torch: Why the West Must Not Retreat

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
Charlie Kirk’s sudden death leaves more than grief; it leaves a void in a moment of profound civilizational danger. He was not just a political organizer or cultural commentator. He was a voice that gave the next generation permission to reject the lies of relativism, to reclaim confidence in the West, and to stand against the forces — both ideological and violent — that seek to dismantle it. To honor his life means refusing to let that mission fade.
Kirk understood that the greatest threats to freedom were not hidden in obscure policy debates, but in the cultural and spiritual health of the West. He saw that when a society abandons faith, mocks tradition, and treats national identity as a shameful relic, it becomes easy prey for movements that thrive on weakness and self-doubt. His genius was to frame this not as nostalgia, but as survival.
For him, defending family, faith, and moral order was not a luxury — it was the only path by which free societies could endure.
One challenge Kirk named very clearly was the rise of radical Islamism and terrorism. He warned that this was not merely a foreign problem, but an internal one. Radical ideologies, cloaked in the language of grievance, have found fertile ground in Western cities, universities, and political discourse. Under the cover of tolerance, they have grown bolder. Under the silence of elites, they have become entrenched. Kirk refused to bend to the false equivalence that excuses extremism as cultural difference. He understood that those who despise freedom should not be empowered to weaponize it.
His critics often called him polarizing, but what they truly feared was his clarity. He reminded audiences that not all values are equal, not all ideas are harmless, and not every ideology deserves space in a free society. In a climate where cowardice is praised as moderation, his directness was seen as dangerous. But the true danger lies in the refusal to speak plainly about the threats that face us. Civilizations do not collapse overnight; they are eroded when their defenders lose the courage to distinguish between what is worth preserving and what must be rejected.
Kirk never lost that courage. He confronted progressive elites who undermined confidence in the West from within, and he confronted radical Islamist sympathizers who justified violence against it from without. He saw that both positions, though different in form, worked toward the same end: a weakening of Western resolve, an erosion of shared identity, and the creation of a generation uncertain of its own inheritance. His refusal to allow that message to go unchallenged gave hope to millions of young people who might otherwise have drifted into cynicism or despair.
Now his death presents a stark choice. The forces he warned against are not pausing to mourn. They are pressing forward, eager to fill the space that was already under siege. If his legacy is not actively continued, it will not simply fade — it will be replaced by movements hostile to everything he fought to defend. To preserve his mission, the West must double down on the truths he carried: that strength is not arrogance, that tradition is not oppression, and that freedom without moral order is an illusion that collapses into chaos.
The stakes are high. If these principles are allowed to wither, we risk a generation unmoored from history, unprepared for the battles ahead, and unwilling to confront the ideological threats at our doorstep. But if Kirk’s legacy is embraced and advanced, his death will be the beginning of a renewal.
The West cannot retreat. It cannot afford the luxury of silence or the temptation of compromise with those who seek its undoing. The path forward requires the clarity and courage that Charlie Kirk embodied. To carry his torch is not simply to honor his memory. It is to safeguard the survival of the civilization he loved and defended. The question is not whether we should continue his work. The question is whether we can endure if we do not.
Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx