Feed aggregator

President Donald Trump said that he will personally decide whether the execution of convicted Fort Hood mass murderer Nidal Hasan should be broadcast live, as a proposal to televise the firing squad execution draws objections from lawmakers in both parties.

Speaking with reporters on the White House South Lawn, Trump said he was considering competing arguments over whether the public should be permitted to watch Hasan’s execution, which is scheduled for December 3.

“He’s a vicious killer, killed 13 people in cold blood, wounded over 20. Some of those people will never have their lives back in a true sense,” Trump told reporters. “He was vicious. He was violent.”

The president suggested that making the execution publicly viewable could discourage others from committing similar atrocities, although he acknowledged that there were strong opinions on both sides of the issue.

“There are two thoughts: don’t show it and show it, because you know by showing it, maybe other people won’t be doing what he did,” the president continued. “So I’ll make a decision ultimately. I know what the military would like to do, but we’ll make a decision.”

Trump’s latest comments followed remarks Friday in which he indicated that officials were still reviewing the possibility of broadcasting the execution, while making clear that the sentence itself would be carried out.

According to Trump, “they’re making a determination about” whether Hasan’s death should be livestreamed, “but he will be killed, it will be through firing squad.”

The president also expressed little concern over the particular circumstances of Hasan’s execution, emphasizing his belief that the death penalty was justified by the magnitude of the attack.

“So, I really don’t care how he goes, as long as he goes, and I think that the death penalty is a very worthy way of going for him,” Trump stated.

The White House confirmed earlier in the week that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had formally proposed executing Hasan by firing squad on December 3 and that Trump had authorized the recommendation.

Hasan, who served as an Army psychiatrist, carried out the November 2009 massacre at a military processing facility at Fort Hood, Texas. Armed with a handgun, he opened fire on soldiers and civilians, murdering 12 military personnel and one civilian and wounding 32 others.

The shooting became the deadliest mass shooting ever carried out at an American military installation, devastating military families and raising serious questions about security procedures and warning signs preceding the attack.

Hasan represented himself during his 2013 military trial and openly acknowledged responsibility for the killings. During his opening statement, he told the court that the “evidence will clearly show that I am the shooter,” while explaining that he had acted in response to American military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He was convicted and sentenced to death, although his execution has remained pending for more than a decade as the military justice process continued.

Vice President JD Vance addressed the proposed livestream Friday, distancing himself from the idea of watching the execution and expressing uncertainty about whether a broadcast would ultimately take place.

Vance told reporters that he would not watch the execution if it were televised and added, “I don’t know that that’s actually going to happen.”

The proposal has generated significant opposition on Capitol Hill, with Republicans joining Democrats in questioning whether a public broadcast of an execution would be appropriate for the United States military.

Critics have raised concerns about turning the implementation of a military death sentence into a public spectacle, even in a case involving one of the deadliest attacks against American service members.

Democratic lawmakers have also challenged Hegseth’s handling of the matter, with Sen. Mark Kelly among those calling for the defense secretary’s removal over the proposed public execution.

Should the December 3 execution proceed, it would mark the first time the U.S. military has carried out a death sentence in approximately 65 years. The last military execution took place in 1961, when Army Private John A. Bennett was hanged at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

Hegseth has defended the proposed broadcast as a means of demonstrating the consequences of attacks against American military personnel. During a television interview Thursday, he said the execution would be accessible to the public because “people need to understand that there’s serious consequences for these types of things.”

Opposition has extended beyond Washington. Survivors of the Fort Hood massacre have voiced concerns about the proposed broadcast, including Alonzo Lunsford, who was shot seven times during the attack and has warned against turning the execution into a spectacle.

Religious leaders have also objected. Archbishop Paul Coakley, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, condemned the proposed broadcast and urged the administration to reconsider. Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s secretary of state, similarly criticized the idea of making an execution available for public viewing.

The debate has also raised questions about the precedent such a broadcast would establish. Although executions have historically been witnessed by designated officials, relatives and other authorized observers, the Pentagon’s proposal would make Hasan’s death available to a potentially worldwide audience.

The military has conducted no executions since Army Private John A. Bennett was hanged at Fort Leavenworth in April 1961. Its last known execution by firing squad occurred in November 1945.

For now, the December 3 execution remains scheduled, while the question of whether the public will be able to watch it awaits Trump’s final decision.

{Matzav.com}

Vice President JD Vance said that U.S. Ambassador to Greece Kimberly Guilfoyle should face consequences if allegations that she sought $100,000 from a political donor in exchange for access to senior Trump administration officials are substantiated, while emphasizing that the accusations must be investigated before any judgment is reached.

Speaking to reporters in Ohio on Friday, Vance addressed the growing controversy surrounding Guilfoyle, a longtime Trump ally and former fiancée of Donald Trump Jr., after reports surfaced alleging that she asked Republican donor Eric Deters to help pay off a substantial American Express balance shortly before her Senate confirmation hearing in July 2025.

“Look, these are allegations, and what I always say is: we don’t try people in the court of public opinion. We try people in a court of law,” Vance said.

The vice president cautioned against treating the reported text messages as proof of wrongdoing, pointing out that the claims have yet to be established.

“You don’t take messages that people allegedly had between one person or another, or one person’s story, and say, ‘Oh, because of that, Kimberly Guilfoyle is, is guilty.’ I think that’s absurd,” Vance said. “Let’s actually see what the facts are. Let’s see what the truth is.”

He then made clear that proven misconduct would warrant accountability.

“And obviously, if there was something bad that happened, then people have to suffer consequences for it,” he added.

The controversy began after The Wall Street Journal reported that Guilfoyle had allegedly requested that Deters transfer $100,000 directly to American Express to settle her credit card debt. The communications, reportedly exchanged through the encrypted messaging service Signal, also allegedly involved offers to help Deters obtain access to influential figures in President Trump’s administration.

According to messages subsequently obtained by other news organizations, Guilfoyle pressed Deters to make the payment on July 3, 2025, just six days before her Senate confirmation hearing.

“Honey please I need you to get this done for me today,” one message attributed to Guilfoyle stated.

Other purported messages suggested that Guilfoyle wanted to avoid creating a written record of their financial dealings. In one exchange, she allegedly warned Deters that documenting their arrangement could jeopardize her diplomatic appointment.

“You’ll literally cost me my ambassadorship,” she reportedly wrote.

Deters, a longtime Trump supporter and former congressional candidate from Kentucky, has alleged that Guilfoyle offered to use her political connections to assist him with various matters if he provided the financial assistance. He told NBC News that he understood the proposed arrangement as an exchange of money for political favors.

“She was so desperate for that $100,000. It was a quid pro quo,” Deters said.

He further claimed that Guilfoyle had indicated she could help him obtain access to prominent administration figures and other influential individuals associated with President Trump.

Deters has said he ultimately declined to make the payment. The allegations remain disputed, and no finding of wrongdoing against Guilfoyle has been established.

An attorney representing Guilfoyle has challenged the authenticity of the messages without publicly specifying which portions were allegedly inaccurate. Another explanation offered by her legal team was that money was owed to Guilfoyle in connection with speaking engagements, an account Deters has disputed.

The controversy has also drawn the attention of federal investigators. NBC News reported Friday that the State Department’s Office of Inspector General is investigating Guilfoyle and the U.S. Embassy in Greece, citing two individuals familiar with the matter. The existence of an investigation does not establish that the allegations are true.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who was visiting Greece as the controversy unfolded, pushed back against reporters seeking an immediate response to the allegations. Rubio argued that the administration should have an opportunity to review the information before reaching conclusions.

“We don’t conduct these things in a press conference on a tarmac in a foreign country because you wrote a story or somebody else wrote a story because some source gave it to you,” Rubio said.

“I don’t even know if what you’re reporting is true,” he added.

Rubio also expressed frustration with expectations that officials immediately address allegations circulated through news reports before the underlying material has been examined.

Vance, meanwhile, rejected the suggestion that the alleged arrangement reflected accepted practices within the administration. Asked whether the accusations represented how the Trump administration conducts business, he responded, “certainly not.”

The allegations have intensified scrutiny of Guilfoyle’s tenure as ambassador, particularly because of her longstanding personal and political connections to the Trump family. A former Fox News personality and prominent Trump campaign surrogate, Guilfoyle was nominated to represent the United States in Greece and subsequently confirmed by the Senate.

President Trump has also been asked about the controversy, describing the accusations as “too bad” without publicly clarifying whether Guilfoyle continues to enjoy his full support.

Vance made his latest remarks during a visit to Ohio, where he cast his ballot ahead of the November midterm elections and participated in Republican campaign events supporting Senator Jon Husted and gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy.

{Matzav.com}

A Palestinian museum with extensive connections to British government-funded institutions and cultural organizations is facing accusations of glorifying some of the most notorious terrorists responsible for murdering Israeli civilians, raising questions about Britain’s willingness to condemn Palestinian terrorism while imposing sanctions on Israelis over alleged violence in Yehudah and Shomron.

The Palestinian Museum, established in 2016 in Birzeit, operates both a physical museum and an extensive digital archive containing photographs, posters, historical documents, and educational materials. Among its holdings are materials honoring individuals responsible for deadly terrorist attacks, including the 1978 Coastal Road massacre, the murder of an Israeli family in Nahariya, and attacks that killed scores of Israeli civilians.

The controversy was highlighted by Susie Dym, a London-born spokesperson for the Israeli organization Mattot Arim, who accused British authorities of applying a double standard in their treatment of Israel and Palestinian institutions. Dym pointed to Britain’s sanctions against certain Israelis while maintaining cultural and institutional relationships with a museum whose collections include material celebrating convicted terrorists and perpetrators of mass-casualty attacks.

The museum’s online collection includes a poster featuring Dalal Mughrabi, who led the March 1978 Coastal Road terrorist attack in Israel. During the assault, terrorists seized a bus and murdered 38 people, including 13 children and an American photographer, Gail Rubin, according to commonly cited accounts of the massacre. The museum’s description of Mughrabi identifies her as a “Martyr of the Palestinian Revolution“.

Additional material in the museum’s digital archive includes photographs of a kindergarten and school named in Mughrabi’s honor, along with several other images of the terrorist. The continued commemoration of Mughrabi has long been a source of controversy because of the scale of the massacre she helped carry out.

The museum’s materials have also appeared on other websites promoting Palestinian nationalism. One article published by Islamicity.org reproduced a Mughrabi poster attributed to the museum and described her actions in celebratory terms.

The article stated: “Dalal’s group hijacked a bus … 39 Israelis were killed…. [Dalal] inspired thousands of young Palestinian and Lebanese women to follow in her footsteps…. This month, and every March, Palestinians commemorate a Palestinian heroine who sacrificed herself for her country.”

Another figure represented in the museum’s collection is Samir Kuntar, the Lebanese terrorist responsible for one of Israel’s most horrific attacks. Kuntar participated in a 1979 terrorist raid in Nahariya in which members of the Haran family were murdered.

The museum’s archive contains portraits of Kuntar during his imprisonment in Beersheba. Even the left-wing Israeli newspaper Haaretz described his actions as “one of the most traumatic terror attacks in Israeli history”.

Smadar Haran, whose husband Danny and four-year-old daughter Einat were murdered in the attack, previously recounted the brutality of the assault.

She described how the terrorists took her husband and daughter “down to the beach. There, according to eyewitnesses, one of them shot Danny in front of Einat…. Then he smashed my little girl’s skull in against a rock with his rifle butt. That terrorist was Samir Kuntar.”

Kuntar was subsequently released in a 2008 prisoner exchange between Israel and Hezbollah, a decision that generated considerable controversy because of the murders for which he had been convicted.

The museum also maintains a collection dedicated to Marwan Barghouti, the imprisoned Palestinian leader convicted in Israel in connection with five murders committed during the Second Intifada.

In its description of the collection, the museum declares: “Marwan al-Barghouthi is a Palestinian freedom fighter… a symbol of the Palestinian Revolution and the Palestinian National Liberation Movement.”

The archive includes photographs showing Barghouti alongside other imprisoned Palestinian militants. His portrayal as a revolutionary figure stands in sharp contrast to his criminal convictions in Israel.

Other materials commemorate Yahya Ayyash, the Hamas bombmaker commonly known as the Engineer, who played a central role in organizing suicide bombings against Israeli civilians during the 1990s.

A poster produced by a Birzeit University student organization marks the 12th anniversary of what it calls Ayyash’s “murder” by Israel. Ayyash was responsible for developing explosives used in numerous terrorist attacks that killed approximately 100 Israelis and wounded hundreds more.

Another poster commemorates Khalil al-Wazir, better known as Abu Jihad, a senior PLO terrorist commander linked to attacks that killed large numbers of Israelis.

The poster identifies him as ‘The Heroic Shaheed, The Commander Abu Jihad, Martyr of the War for Independence’.

According to the museum, the item belongs to its “permanent collection” and is among the “documents that form an important part of the history of the Palestinian revolution”.

Abu Jihad was implicated in planning and directing attacks that killed at least 125 Israelis, including the 1978 Coastal Road massacre.

The archive also preserves a photograph of the grave of Ali Hassan Salameh, a senior Black September operative associated with the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre, in which 11 Israeli athletes and coaches were murdered.

The photograph identifies the burial location as “at the Cemetery of the Shaheeds”, using the Arabic term for martyrs.

Although museums routinely preserve controversial historical material for educational and documentary purposes, critics argue that the language used in several of these collections goes beyond neutral historical presentation and portrays perpetrators of terrorist atrocities as national heroes.

Particular concern has been raised about the museum’s educational activities and its relationships with Palestinian schools.

The institution operates a Teachers’ Programme intended to connect its exhibits and digital collections with classroom instruction. According to its published description, the initiative “is based on creating a link between teachers, schools, and the museum” through “school research projects that link the curriculum and the knowledge provided by the museum through its … digital spaces.”

Its broader Education Programme “encourages children… bringing the museum’s culture to the new generation”.

The museum also works with the Palestinian Ministry of Education and has reported receiving nearly 100 visits annually from government schools.

Dym argues that these educational partnerships make the museum’s presentation of convicted terrorists and individuals responsible for mass murder particularly troubling, given the potential for children to encounter such material in an institutional setting.

The controversy also extends to the museum’s connections with British organizations.

The Palestinian Museum is a major initiative of Taawon, also known as the Welfare Association, a Palestinian nonprofit organization involved in humanitarian, cultural, and development projects.

A British organization operating under the Taawon name is registered with the Charity Commission for England and Wales under charity number 1020238. Its charitable status provides access to tax benefits under applicable British law, although the existence of those benefits does not by itself establish that British taxpayers directly financed any particular museum exhibit.

The British Council, Britain’s international organization for cultural relations and educational opportunities, has also been identified by the museum among its supporters.

King Charles III serves as patron of the British Council, which operates under a royal charter and receives funding from the British government alongside income from its other activities.

The museum has additionally identified support from the British government’s Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, raising questions about the nature and extent of official British financial involvement.

British cultural institutions have participated in projects with the museum as well.

The British Library, the United Kingdom’s national library, collaborated with the Palestinian Museum on a project called “Conservation for Digitisation”, involving the preservation and digitization of historical material.

In 2022, the museum also established a textile conservation studio through cooperation with London’s Victoria and Albert Museum, another prominent institution that receives British government funding.

Officials involved in that initiative discussed Palestinian embroidery and the political symbolism of its colors, including “colour schemes of red, green, black and white – the colours of the Palestinian flag”, which they characterized as “an embroidered message of resistance”.

The museum’s first director general, Mahmoud Hawari, also had professional ties to Britain’s cultural establishment, having served as a lead curator at the British Museum.

Dym questioned whether officials involved in these British partnerships were familiar with the museum’s online holdings and the terminology used to describe terrorists responsible for murdering Israeli civilians.

The dispute comes against the backdrop of Britain’s increasingly restrictive policies toward certain Israeli individuals and organizations in Yehudah and Shomron.

British authorities have imposed sanctions on Israeli individuals and entities accused of involvement in violence against Palestinians, while also taking measures targeting certain settlement-related activities. Those actions have been defended by British officials as responses to alleged human rights violations and threats to regional stability.

Dym rejects the legal and political arguments underpinning those measures. She cites the writings of Professor Eugene Rostow, a former dean of Yale Law School, who argued that Jewish settlement rights in territories captured by Israel in 1967 were protected by the international legal framework, including Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

That interpretation remains disputed, with much of the international community maintaining that Israeli settlements in the territories violate international law, a position Israel contests.

For Dym, however, the central issue is the contrast between Britain’s readiness to penalize Israelis accused of misconduct and its continued association with Palestinian cultural institutions whose archives contain material commemorating perpetrators of deadly terrorist attacks.

The museum’s defenders could argue that preserving posters, photographs, and political documents is part of the legitimate work of recording Palestinian history. The criticism, however, focuses particularly on descriptions that refer to convicted terrorists as martyrs, heroes, and freedom fighters, rather than merely documenting their historical activities.

The extent to which British financial assistance or institutional cooperation has directly supported the specific exhibits and digital materials identified by Dym remains an important distinction. The existence of a partnership does not necessarily mean that a British organization endorses every item in the museum’s collection.

Nevertheless, Dym maintains that British institutions should be held accountable for their relationships with organizations that present terrorists in celebratory terms, especially while London continues to pursue punitive measures against Israelis.

Her criticism ultimately raises a question for British authorities: whether the government will examine its institutional and financial relationships with the Palestinian Museum in light of the materials identified in its archive, or allow those partnerships to continue without further scrutiny.

Additional research confirmed a particularly significant detail: a British Council cultural preservation grant of approximately £152,000 funded a project involving the Palestinian Museum and British Library. The grant supported the preservation and digitization of roughly 3,000 historical documents. A separate $484,298 grant from the ALIPH Foundation supported the museum’s textile conservation partnership with the Victoria and Albert Museum. These documented funding arrangements establish the British institutional connections, although they do not establish that British funds paid for the specific terrorist-related archive entries.

{Matzav.com}

More than 37 years after her husband was murdered while protecting the community of Har Bracha in Shomron, Leah Ziv-Farag is demanding that the IDF remove a monument honoring the terrorist responsible for his death, saying the memorial’s presence near the scene of the attack has compounded her family’s suffering for decades.

Her husband, Yaakov Farag, was killed in December 1988 while guarding land belonging to Har Bracha. Following the murder, the terrorist seized Farag’s weapon and used it to open fire on IDF soldiers.

Farag left behind his wife, who was pregnant at the time, and their young children, who were forced to grow up without their father.

The terrorist, identified as Hamdan al-Najjar, is commemorated by a monument located a short distance from where Farag was murdered. The family is now calling on the military to dismantle the structure, arguing that honoring the perpetrator of a deadly terrorist attack at the very location where he committed the murder is an intolerable affront to the victims.

Ziv-Farag addressed her appeal to Maj. Gen. Avi Bluth, commander of the IDF’s Central Command, describing the anguish her family has endured since the murder and the additional pain of seeing her husband’s killer memorialized nearby.

“It is difficult to put into words the feelings of a family whose loved one was murdered in a particular place, only to find a short distance away a monument commemorating the person who took his life,” she wrote. “A monument is a symbol. It conveys a message to future generations. What message do we want to pass on to our children? Do we commemorate someone who took a life, or the man who was murdered while defending his home, his land and his family?”

The family maintains that the monument does more than commemorate an individual. By publicly honoring a terrorist who murdered a Jewish resident and subsequently attacked Israeli soldiers, they argue, it conveys a message that glorifies violence and disregards the suffering of the victims.

The appeal has also drawn support from Knesset Member Tzvi Sukkot, who has urged the military to act without delay.

Sukkot, who chairs the Knesset Education Committee and its subcommittee dealing with Yehuda and Shomron, pointed to recent IDF operations aimed at dismantling monuments honoring terrorists and their supporters throughout the region.

He argued that the same policy should be applied to the memorial honoring al-Najjar, particularly given its proximity to the location of Farag’s murder.

“There is no justification for commemorating the murderer of a Jew, certainly not at the site of the attack where he took the life of a man who simply wanted to protect his country’s land,” Sukkot said. “The fight against the commemoration of terrorism must be consistent and determined to the end.”

Additional reporting reveals that the terrorist also killed an IDF soldier, Cpl. Arthur (Alter) Herzig, and wounded two others during the 1988 attack.

The monument was previously targeted by MK Tzvi Sukkot in August, although its present condition remains unclear.

{Matzav.com}

Columbia University has apologized after a dining hall displayed signs reading “October 7th Blush Sauce” on the third anniversary of Hamas’s massacre in Israel, triggering widespread outrage and renewed criticism of the university’s handling of antisemitism. School officials say the wording was an inadvertent menu-template mistake, not an intentional reference to the terrorist attacks.

The signs appeared Wednesday at the pasta station in John Jay Dining Hall, where blush sauce was among the lunch offerings. Photographs spread rapidly across social media, with critics questioning how the date of the October 7, 2023, massacre, in which approximately 1,200 people were murdered and 251 were taken hostage, could appear beside a food item on the anniversary.

The university’s dining department said the sauce had been scheduled for that day and that a date included in the staff’s working menu was mistakenly carried over to the printed display. Vicki Dunn, assistant vice president of Columbia Dining, said the signs were removed promptly after the problem came to light.

“This was an unfortunate mistake and was not intended as a reference to the events of October 7,” Dunn said. “The blush sauce was scheduled to be served, and when that information was copied into the menu template, the date was accidentally left in. Our staff took the signs down as soon as the mistake was identified. We are sorry for the confusion and concern this caused.”

Dunn said the department would add a further check before menus are displayed in dining facilities.

“Moving forward, Columbia Dining will also have a team member review all menus before they are posted,” she added.

As criticism mounted online, Columbia released its own explanation, reiterating that the date was not meant to allude to the Hamas attack.

“This was a mistake, not a reference to the events of October 7. The date was accidentally left in when the day’s meal information was copied into the menu template. The signs were removed as soon as the error was caught, and we’re sorry for the concern and confusion this caused.”

The student newspaper, the Columbia Daily Spectator, reported that two signs at the John Jay pasta station carried the wording. It also reported that blush sauce was the only sauce labeled with a date, an unusual detail that contributed to the online reaction. A photograph posted by a New York correspondent for Haaretz drew more than one million views by late Wednesday evening, according to the student paper.

The episode unfolded on an already tense anniversary for Columbia, which has faced years of controversy over anti-Israel demonstrations and allegations that Jewish students have been subjected to harassment and intimidation on campus.

In February 2024, antisemitic flyers showing a skunk with an Israeli flag appeared at the university. That spring, anti-Israel activists erected a protest encampment, setting off a confrontation over campus safety, protest restrictions and the university’s response to antisemitism.

During the protests, demonstrators were recorded telling Jewish counterprotesters that the October 7 massacre would happen “every day” and “10,000” times. In another incident, a protester displayed a sign appearing to call on Hamas’s armed wing to target Jewish students.

A Jewish student wearing a kippah was punched near the university during an encounter with an anti-Israel protester in December 2024. In May 2025, masked demonstrators occupied Butler Library, and Columbia subsequently suspended or otherwise disciplined dozens of participants.

The Trump administration also took action against Columbia, accusing the university of failing to protect Jewish students and suspending $400 million in federal research funding. The university later reached a settlement with the administration over federal allegations involving antisemitism and other civil-rights concerns.

The third anniversary of the massacre brought another round of demonstrations outside Columbia. Roughly 100 anti-Israel protesters assembled near the campus gates Wednesday, with participants chanting “Globalize the intifada,” “No peace on stolen land,” and “Every fascist state will fall.” Others shouted “Palestine is Arab” in Arabic.

The protest took place outside the university gates on a public sidewalk. Columbia’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, which the school suspended in 2023, was among the groups associated with the anniversary demonstration.

The same day, Columbia/Barnard Hillel arranged an installation of approximately 1,200 white chairs to commemorate those murdered on October 7, and members of the university community gathered at Low Library for an evening memorial.

{Matzav.com}