Friday, September 12, 2025

Who was Horst Wessel, and why are people comparing Charlie Kirk to him?

Within hours of Kirk’s death, opposite ends of the political spectrum invoked the Nazi martyr



German recruits to a Luftwaffe Luftnachrichten (signals) unit sing the Horst Wessel Song at their swearing-in ceremony at the newly opened Luftkriegsschule Berlin-Gatow in Gatow, southwest Berlin, April 25, 1936. Photo by FPG/Hulton Archive/Getty Images

By Benyamin Cohen and Hannah Feuer
September 11, 2025
The Forward 

When Charlie Kirk, the 31-year-old conservative founder of the nation’s top right-wing youth activist group, was assassinated Wednesday during a speaking engagement at a Utah university, the reaction was swift. President Donald Trump, a close ally, ordered flags to half-staff. Evangelical pastors called him a “modern-day MLK” and an Orthodox rabbi dubbed him “the Abraham of our times.”

But in some corners of the internet, a different name surfaced: Horst Wessel. Within hours of Kirk’s death, people were comparing him to the young Nazi activist whose 1930 murder turned him into a martyr for Adolf Hitler’s movement.

These comparisons came from opposite ends of the political spectrum. Some on the far left warned that Trump could use Kirk’s death to consolidate power, just as Hitler had with Wessel’s death. At the same time, Wessel’s name remains revered in neo-Nazi circles, where invoking him carries a darker meaning.


Related ‘Murdered for speaking truth’: Netanyahu and US Jewish leaders mourn Charlie Kirk


Who was Horst Wessel?

Wessel, whose father was a pastor, was born in 1907 in Bielefeld, Germany. He was the oldest of three children, and as a teenager he joined a right-wing youth group. At 19, he enrolled in university to study law, then a few years later gave up his studies to pursue Nazi activism.

He was a charismatic member of the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party who “was interested in talking to the other side,” said Daniel Siemens, a professor of European history at Newcastle University and author of the book The Making of a Nazi Hero: The Murder and Myth of Horst Wessel.


Wessel made a name for himself convincing working class people to join the Nazi Party, Siemens said. “He basically was a good bridge builder between traditional conservative leaders and theoretical Nazis,” said Siemens. “And that’s what made him particularly useful after his death, as someone who could combine and bring people together posthumously.”

RelatedAntisemitism flares and ‘Reichstag’ mentions soar online in wake of Charlie Kirk assassination

The circumstances of his death in 1930 at the age of 22 are not entirely clear, but according to Siemens, he was most likely killed by a group of communists after a dispute related to unpaid rent.

After his murder, Wessel was held up as a martyr of the Nazi cause. The “Horst Wessel Song” became the official anthem of the Nazi Party and later the German co-national anthem.


“School children had to sing it,” Siemens said. “So it was really a household name in the 1930s in Nazi Germany.”


The song has been banned in Germany and Austria since the end of World War II.
Why are people comparing Charlie Kirk to him?

For some on the far left, Kirk isn’t being described as a Nazi, but there’s worry that his death could be politicized as Wessel’s was. “They basically want to level criticism on Trump and his supporters,” Siemens said of the far left. “Because, for them, every kind of parallel to Nazism, every allusion to Nazism, is obviously very bad.”

The concern is that Trump could hold up Kirk as proof that conservative Christians are under attack, just as Hitler used Wessel’s story to galvanize the Nazi base. Already, pastors and politicians have framed Kirk’s assassination as martyrdom. One Oklahoma pastor said, “Charlie died for what he believed in; he died for something greater than just himself.”

In a video address from the Oval Office, Trump blamed liberal rhetoric for fueling violence, saying some “have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis,” which he called “directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today.” He vowed to target the groups that fund or support such attacks.

On the far right, Wessel “is a name that the neo-Nazis of today know very well,” said Siemens. In those circles, Wessel is considered a “good Nazi” — someone who died too early to be implicated in the Holocaust. Siemens added: “For them, this is a moment of glorification and elevation.”
Are the comparisons valid?

Siemens, a historian, said not to compare the two men “at all costs.”

If you do, you risk legitimizing the National Socialism ideology that gave rise to Nazism, Siemens said.

And it’s inaccurate. Wessel was comfortable with violence and organized an attack on the local Communist Party headquarters that injured four people. While Kirk’s rhetoric was combative — he railed against immigrants, gender ideology and “global elites” — he operated in a democratic system and advocated for civil disagreement.

The bigger parallel may lie not in the men themselves but in how their deaths are used. Siemens warned that resurrecting Wessel’s name shows that “neo-Nazi martyrology is still alive to a certain extent.” And the fact that more Americans seem familiar with Wessel now than when he first researched his book more than a decade ago, he added, “indirectly tells us there is a growing fascination with these figures, and maybe even with aspects of Nazi ideology.”

The rush to invoke Horst Wessel’s name reflects two realities. On the right, there’s a dangerous willingness among some extremists to valorize Nazi symbols. On the left, a fear that Kirk’s death will be used to erode civil liberties.

Siemens’ advice is simple: steer clear. “It’s a slippery slope,” he said, adding that “the people that you choose as your heroes” should “engage in civil discussion and dialogue, and not this mixture of political radicalism that activates violence.”

Benyamin Cohen is a senior writer at the Forward and host of our morning briefing, Forwarding the News. He is the author of two books, My Jesus Year and The Einstein Effect.cohen@forward.com

Hannah Feuer joined the Forward as a general assignment reporter in May 2025 after two years as a culture reporter at Seven Days, an independent weekly in Burlington, Vermont. Originally from the Washington, D.C., area, she is a 2023 graduate of Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism.feuer@forward.com
@hannah_feuer
Has Trump’s Reichstag Moment Arrived?

All Hitler needed in 1933 was an excuse, and it didn’t take him long to find one. The fire this time may be the assassination of a key figure in the MAGA movement.

MAGA'S HORST WESSEL


Chuck Idelson
Sep 12, 2025
Common Dreams

Is this America’s Reichstag moment? The murder of conservative organizer Charlie Kirk, founder of the right-wing Turning Point USA organization, and the overheated response it generated in MAGA world, may come to be seen as its own turning point on the path to autocratic rule in the United States.

Officials in Utah on Friday announced the apprehension of 22-year-old Tyler Robinson as the suspected murderer, but already in the less than 48 hours since the abhorrent assassination of a top Trump confidant, chilling echoes can be heard that remind us of how Adolph Hitler exploited a fire at the German Parliament, the Reichstag, in 1933 to remove his final impediments to unleashing a horrific dictatorship in the Third Reich.


RECOMMENDED...




‘No Trump! No Troops!’ Thousands March in Chicago as President Threatens ‘War’



‘The Hitler of Our Time!’ Trump Confronted Inside DC Steak House

Kirk had become a key figure in the Trump movement. His mobilizing on college campuses which was credited as spiking the youth vote for Trump, proclivity at demonizing Democrats and the left, mainstreaming racism, and outspoken role as a 2020 election denier, led Trump to call him “one of 3 or 4 people most responsible for my (2024) election.” Trump and multiple Trump followers quickly branded the murder as a violent attack on the entire Trump movement, “all of us,” promising threats of war. Fox News talking head Jesse Waters declared, “we’re going to avenge Charlie (Kiirk’s) death.”

As usual, Trump led the recriminations and threat of retaliation. “For years, the radical left has compared wonderful Americans like Charlie Kirk to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals,” said Trump in a widely broadcast video. “This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today and it must stop right now. My administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity, and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it.”

In singling out attacks by the so-called “radical left” in his video, Trump seeks to create a counter-narrative of who is provoking political violence, for example, ignoring the recent murder of Democrat Melissa Hortman, the former state house speaker and her husband, Mark, by a reported Trump supporter, an act Utah Sen. Mike Lee blamed on “Marxists.”

Trump and others on the right mocked the attempted murder of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul. Trump routinely urged supporters to assault protesters at 2016 campaign rallies. And, most notably, Trump pardoned over 1,500 rioters who attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, including those who assaulted Capitol police officers and some of whom have since been re-arrested and charged with subsequent crimes.

Further, some of the most notorious mass killings in recent years were committed by shooters with far-right and white supremacist leanings, including at an El Paso Walmart, Buffalo grocery store, Charleston Black church, and Pittsburgh synagogue.

Blaming the left and Democrats in general for the Kirk shooting, and the broader array of what Fox personality Sean Hannity calls “ten nonstop years of rage and hatred and a vile language,” and a left whose “ideology is pure evil,” as GOP Rep. Rob Onder insisted on the House floor Thursday, signals the specter of a broader, dangerous response.

Since starting his second term, Trump has steadily moved to expand his authoritarian rule, emphatically evidenced by his draconian secret agent deportation raids and use of federal troops to invade cities in Democratic-led states and cities not to “fight crime,” but as a warning to political opponents. However, he has chafed against lower court legal setbacks and other perceived restraints on his power grab and prepared for opportunities to take the next step. Kirk’s murder, and the vitriolic demands for further crackdown by influential members of Trump’s MAGA team and supporters, draw a parallel in history.

When Hitler was appointed Chancellor in Germany on January 30, 1933, he still had some limits imposed by right-wing coalition partners and the aging Weimer Republic President Paul von Hindenburg. A month later, on February 27, 1933, a fire broke out in the Reichstag gutting the building. Hitler quickly seized on the blaze as an opportunity to fulfill his dreams.

Rushing to the Reichstag, Hitler boasted “we will show no mercy anymore,” notes Peter Fritzsche in Hitler’s First Hundred Days. “Whoever gets in our way will be slaughtered.” He meant Communists,” but also proclaimed “we also have to move against the Social Democrats. We are not sparing anyone.”

“You are now witnessing the beginning of a great new epoch in German history,” Hitler told British journalist Sefton Delmer “that night as they watched the flames consume Parliament. The fire is the beginning,” recounts Ruth Ben-Ghiat in Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present.

The next morning, Hitler persuaded the cabinet, and Hindenburg signed an executive order, the Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of the People and State. The Reichstag Fire Decree, writes Benjamin Carter Hett in The Death of Democracy “tore the heart out of the democratic constitution of the Weimar Republic, cancelling at a stroke freedom of speech and assembly, and freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention.”

The decree not only “suspended all legal protection of speech, assembly, property, and personal liberty, and permitted authorities to arrest” people at whim,” observes Robert Paxton in The Anatomy of Fascism, it had another provision that may look especially attractive to Trump. “It gave the federal government authority over the state governments’ police power.” Now, adds Carter Hett, it even “allowed the central government to remove any state government from office.”

A month later, following a new election that increased Hitler’s hold on government, an additional emergency decree transformed the “constitutional and temporary dictatorship” into what Fritzsche calls an “unconstitutional and permanent dictatorship.”

“Hitler had secured the ability to govern without any checks on the exercise of his authority,” says Ben-Ghiat. “The fire allowed the Nazis to create a society where it was always wartime, the single act of terror a justification for emergency rule,” writes Fritzsche. “The Reichstag Fire Decree became the legal foundation for Hitler’s twelve-year dictatorship,” says Carter Hett.

“The Left is the party of murder,” posted Elon Musk on his X platform after Kirk’s murder. “It’s time for the Trump administration to shut down, defund, & prosecute every single Leftist organization,” declared Trump’s influential friend Laura Loomer. Trump reiterated the heart of these themes in his video address.

Will he make this his Reichstag moment? Only stepped-up opposition by all of us to dictatorship can stop him.
'Dictator thinks you're guilty': Legal expert disturbed by Trump's comments on Kirk case

Travis Gettys
September 12, 2025 
ALTERNET




A legal analyst highlighted a comment by President Donald Trump that shows an alarming lack of respect for the criminal justice system.

The president who famously stalled his own criminal prosecutions until he was re-elected and got those cases dismissed demanded a speedy trial for a man accused of killing Charlie Kirk, but former U.S. attorney Joyce Vance wrote on her "Civil Discourse" Substack page that Trump's comments were problematic.

"Today, after Donald Trump announced it on Fox and Friends, law enforcement told the public it had apprehended a suspect who turned in after confessing to the murder of Charlie Kirk to his father, a former Sheriff’s Deputy and minister," Vance wrote. "Also on Fox and Friends, Trump weighed in on how criminal cases should proceed. He said prosecutions should move more quickly and that the United States should become more like China."

"We have to have quick trials," Trump said on “Fox & Friends.” “I call it quick trials because in China, they do have quick trials. You know, they don’t wait six years.”

The suspect, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, is eligible for the death penalty, according to prosecutors, and Vance said that makes Trump's demand for a speedy trial even more troubling.

"Donald Trump has never read and clearly doesn’t care about the Constitution," she wrote. "This morning, he suggested that the slow pace of trials in the U.S. is leading to unsafe streets. What comes next? Declaring yet another emergency? Suspending due process?"

Criminal trials, as Trump should know, take time because defendants have the right to review and challenge evidence against them, and insanity defenses and competency issues become likely during death penalty cases, she said.

"Is Trump suggesting that the entire criminal justice system and our history and tradition of respecting the rights of criminal defendants, even those accused of the most heinous crimes, should be tossed out the window?" Vance wrote. "Apparently, if you’ve been convicted in the court of public opinion — or if the dictator thinks you’re guilty — constitutional rights are just an inconvenience."

Judge defies resignation calls over 'disgusting' Charlie Kirk post

Daniel Hampton
September 11, 2025
RAW STORY


FILE PHOTO: Founder and president of Turning Point USA Charlie Kirk speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at National Harbor in Oxon Hill, Maryland, U.S., February 28, 2019. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo/File Photo


A suburban Detroit judge shrugged off calls to resign following backlash over her social media post about the killing of Charlie Kirk.

On Wednesday evening, Jaimie Powell Horowitz, an Oak Park district court judge, posted a quote from Kirk just hours after he was slain, in which he said in 2023, "I think it’s worth it to have the cost of unfortunately some gun deaths every year..so we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God given rights. It’s a prudent deal, a rational deal."

"Talk about dying for your beliefs," Powell Horowitz wrote in a Facebook post, according to The Detroit News.


Her post quickly drew criticism, including from Vance Patrick, chair of the county's Republican Party.

"Comments like the ones from Judge Horowitz are disgusting," Patrick said. "Any attempt to justify or lessen the severity of the assassination of Charlie Kirk is a clear indicator of the lack of character and moral fiber of that person. Judge Horowitz should resign immediately to help protect the integrity of our court system."

But Powell Horowitz said her post was factual — and rebuffed Patrick's call.

"The fact that Mr. Kirk — in his own words — had said these kinds of deaths are worth it to protect our Second Amendment rights, as if it's just something we’re willing to accept for gun rights, I think that’s a quote people should really think about," Powell Horowitz told the Detroit News. "I hope people will think about his quote, and whether or not gun deaths are worth it for Second Amendment rights. I certainly don't think his death or others' death is worth it."

The report comes as right-wing activists target people over what they see as insensitive or disrespectful social media comments regarding Kirk's slaying.




'Stephen King is a bitter man': Horror icon faces lawsuit threat over Charlie Kirk comment

David McAfee
September 12, 2025
RAW STORY


Author Stephen King at the Los Angeles premiere of The Manchurian Candidate (Featureflash / Shutterstock.com)

Horror icon Stephen King is being threatened with a lawsuit after a comment made about the late commentator Charlie Kirk.

Kirk was assassinated while doing a debate event at a Utah school, and authorities are still searching for the killer.

King first made headlines immediately after the Kirk shooting, when he said, "The motivation of the man who shot Charlie Kirk isn't clear (although he's probably mentally unstable--duh). What is clear is it was another example of American gun violence."

But King didn't stop there. He later doubled down with a post on his social media that said of Kirk, "He advocated stoning gays to death. Just sayin’."

That led to outrage from some in MAGA, including GOP lawmaker Mike Lee. He wrote on X, "Please share if you agree that the estate of Charlie Kirk should sue Stephen King for defamation over this heinously false accusation."

"He’s crossed a line It will prove costly," Lee then added.

Fox News host Laura Ingraham responded to that, saying only, "Stephen King is a sad, bitter man."

Conservative influencer Paul A. Szypula claimed that, "Stephen King is defaming the memory of Charlie Kirk."

"King wrongly claims Kirk advocated for violence towards gay people. The clip King is referring to actually shows Kirk illustrating how some people cherry-pick passages from the Bible. Shame on King. He should apologize," the influencer wrote.

In an unrelated post, King also targeted the killer of Kirk, writing simply, "Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray, and the murderer of Charlie Kirk: Cowards who shot from ambush."


Ted Cruz also weighed in, writing, "You are a horrible, evil, twisted liar. No, he did not. Your party—which you shamelessly shilled for—sent $100 billion to the Ayatollah… who does routinely murder homosexuals. Why are you so dishonest & filled with hate?"

Kirk did indeed once say that it was "God's perfect law" to have homosexual men stoned to death.



'Proof morons pass the bar': GOP senator mocked for lawsuit threat against Stephen King

Travis Gettys
September 12, 2025 
ALTERNET


Author Stephen King (Featureflash / Shutterstock.com)

Charlie Kirk's allies vowed vengeance against novelist Stephen King for summarizing the slain activist's political views, but social media users pointed out a flaw in their strategy.

The best-selling author reminded his X followers that Kirk, who was fatally shot Wednesday at a speaking event at Utah Valley University, held virulently anti-LGBTQ views, pointing out that "he advocated stoning gays to death. Just sayin’."

Kirk often spoke out against what he described as the “LGBTQ agenda" and described the Bible verse Leviticus 20:13, which calls for the execution of homosexuals, as “God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters," but the right-wing influencer's supporters, including Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), demanded retribution.

"Please share if you agree that the estate of Charlie Kirk should sue Stephen King for defamation over this heinously false accusation," the senator posted on his person "Based Mike Lee" account. "He’s crossed a line. It will prove costly."

King ended up deleting the post in question, but legal experts and other social media users questioned the senator's call for accountability for criticizing the late Turning Point USA leader.

"Mike Lee allegedly went to law school and passed the bar," posted the popular Bluesky account "Kept Simple." "Aside from Stephen King's claim being true, a dead person's estate can't sue for defamation, on account of the fact that a dead person can't suffer an injury to their reputation, because they are dead."

"He pinned this tweet over there, too," said legal blogger Chris Geidner. "He’s so proud of his practiced stupidity."

"Mike Lee. Proof morons can pass the bar," agreed Bluesky user Common Sense Metalhead.

"Over on Xitter, the troll account of UT's senior senator has launched a campaign to encourage Charlie Kirk's estate to sue Stephen King for ... describing something Charlie Kirk actually said," added legal analyst Marcy Wheeler.

"Aside from having these two insurmountable defects, how is Kirk damaged by people thinking he's a capital punishment favoring bigot?" wondered Bluesky user J.D., who describes himself as a defamation lawyer. "Doesn't that cover a third of his material? Would anyone who liked Charlie Kirk think differently of him even were it false? Does Mike Lee ever think anything through?"

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) accused King of lying about Kirk's stated views, as well, calling the author "a horrible, evil, twisted liar, and he also faced blowback.

"Kirk’s murder doesn’t change that he said this or the fact Ted Cruz is a lyin’ dick," said Jeff Timmer, a senior adviser to the Lincoln Project.

"Another Ted Cruz fail," added X user Darryl Livingstone. "Why don't you take another trip somewhere and maybe stay there permanently?"


This appalling murder can help us confront the scourge of gun violence

Thom Hartmann
September 11, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


Charlie Kirk throws hats to the crowd shortly before he was shot at Utah Valley University. Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune via REUTERS

Republican Charlie Kirk is dead. So is former Democratic Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark.

Two clearly political assassinations in the past four months.

And a new study published in The Journal of the American Medical Association’s journal, Pediatrics, suggests that most of the deaths from the more than 250 mass shootings in America so far this year could also be classified as resulting from politics.

How did we get here, and what do we do?

In 2008, the in-the-NRA’s-pocket Republican Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia did much the same thing that Sam Alito would later do with his Dobbs anti-abortion ruling: he reached back hundreds of years to look for a definition at the time the Second Amendment was written for how people then viewed the phrase “bear arms” and then twisted it beyond recognition.

The result was the corrupt Heller decision, as I lay out in The Hidden History of Guns and the Second Amendment, which unleashed a new wave of guns on an unsuspecting America.

It was followed two years later by McDonald v Chicago, another NRA-purchased all-Republican decision striking down Chicago’s gun control laws and forcing cities and Blue states to accept more weapons whether their people — through their elected officials — wanted that tsunami of guns in their communities or not.

As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent:
“Although the Court’s decision in this case might be seen as a mere adjunct to its decision in Heller, the consequences could prove far more destructive — quite literally — to our Nation’s communities and to our constitutional structure.”

As we saw yesterday with the right’s new martyr, and have been seeing in the daily toll of gun deaths that America suffers from — alone among all other nations in the world — Stevens was prescient.


We are literally the only country in the world that is experiencing this magnitude of gun crisis. Half of the guns in civilian hands in the entire world are here in the United States, so it shouldn’t surprise anybody that the leading cause of childhood death in the US is bullets and political assassinations have become routine.

The study in Pediatrics looked at child gun deaths in America before and after the 2010 McDonald decision. What they found is shocking.

That decision caused two major changes in gun laws across America. The first was that nearly every red state loosened their gun laws, sometimes in the extreme, even allowing open carry of semiautomatic weapons of war without any permit or regulation. Most blue states, on the other hand, looked for and found ways around the decision to actually tighten their gun control laws.

The result was astonishing. Between 2011 and 2023, the study period, red states that had loosened their gun laws saw 7,453 more children killed by firearms than the pre-McDonald statistical trends would have predicted had the Republicans on the Court not further loosened gun laws.

In blue states that maintained or strengthened their gun laws, though, child gun deaths remained the same as before McDonald and Heller, and, to quote the study:
“Four states (California, Maryland, New York, and Rhode Island) had decreased pediatric firearm mortality after McDonald v Chicago, all of which were in the strict firearms law group.”

Melissa Hortman was a strong advocate of gun control laws. Charlie Kirk opposed them. Both are dead by gunfire, along with hundreds of children and adults this year.


When Hortman was murdered by a politically-inspired rightwing thug, some conservatives on X and other platforms celebrated.

Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee, for example, tweeted: “This is what happens When Marxists don’t get their way,” along with a picture of the shooter. An hour later, again showing the suspect’s picture, Senator Lee wrote: “Nightmare on Waltz Street,” apparently trying to humorously reference Minnesota’s Democratic Governor Tim Walz and his advocacy for gun control.

Yesterday, in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s murder, some liberals were posting the equivalent of “good riddance” to social media platforms, some making Lee’s obscene posts seem tame.

Both are reprehensible.

Instead, let’s take this moment to reflect on how the NRA’s work over the past decades — often funded and supported by Vladimir Putin’s Russia (where gun control is rigid) — killed both of them. And tens of thousands of children and adults over the years.

This week NPR reported that school shootings have spawned a $4 billion industry selling everything from bulletproof backpacks to “panic buttons, bullet-resistant whiteboards, facial recognition technology, training simulators, body armor, guns and tasers.”

They note:
“Tom McDermott, with the metal detector manufacturer CEIA USA, says schools used to be a small fraction of their U.S. business. Now they’re the majority.

“‘It’s not right. We need to solve this problem. It’s good for business, but we don't need to be selling to schools,’ McDermott says.

“Sarah McNeeley, a sales manager with SAM Medical, is selling trauma kits, which include tourniquets, clotting agents and chest seals. She says their customers are traditionally EMTs, fire departments and military medics, but increasingly, school districts.”


It’s insane that America’s answer to five corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court and the NRA flooding our country with deadly weapons is to create a multi-billion-dollar industry to stop bullets or ameliorate their damage in our public schools.

The vast majority of Americans want rational gun control laws instead of this Wild West insanity. Every other developed country in the world has them; not a single one forces their children through the trauma of active shooter drills or subjects them to metal detectors and requires them to occasionally come face-to-face with murderous psychopaths armed to the teeth.

It’s way past time for our politicians to wake the hell up, and hopefully the assassination of a far-right “gun rights” icon will cause at least a few Republicans to break with their party’s fealty to the weapons industry and join with Democrats to Make America Safe Again.



 UN General Assembly to vote on a Hamas-free Palestinian state


By AFP
September 12, 2025


Formally called the New York Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution, the text states "Hamas must free all hostages" and that the UN General Assembly condemns "the attacks committed by Hamas against civilians on the 7th of October - Copyright AFP

 Charly TRIBALLEAU

Amélie BOTTOLLIER-DEPOIS

The UN General Assembly will vote on Friday whether to back the “New York Declaration,” a resolution which seeks to breathe new life into the two-state solution between Israel and Palestine — without the involvement of Hamas.

Although Israel has criticized UN bodies for nearly two years over their failure to condemn Hamas’s attack on October 7, 2023, the declaration, presented by France and Saudi Arabia, leaves no ambiguity.

Formally called the New York Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution, the text states “Hamas must free all hostages” and that the UN General Assembly condemns “the attacks committed by Hamas against civilians on the 7th of October.”

It also calls for “collective action to end the war in Gaza, to achieve a just, peaceful and lasting settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on the effective implementation of the Two-State solution.”

The declaration, which was already endorsed by the Arab League and co-signed in July by 17 UN member states, including several Arab countries, also goes further than condemning Hamas, seeking to fully excise them from leadership in Gaza.

“In the context of ending the war in Gaza, Hamas must end its rule in Gaza and hand over its weapons to the Palestinian Authority, with international engagement and support, in line with the objective of a sovereign and independent Palestinian State,” the declaration states.

The vote precedes an upcoming UN summit co-chaired by Riyadh and Paris on September 22 in New York, in which French President Emmanuel Macron has promised to formally recognize the Palestinian state.

– ‘Shield’ against criticism –


“The fact that the General Assembly is finally backing a text that condemns Hamas directly is significant,” even if “Israelis will say it is far too little, far too late,” Richard Gowan, UN Director at the International Crisis Group, told AFP.

“Now at least states supporting the Palestinians can rebuff Israeli accusations that they implicitly condone Hamas,” he said, adding that it “offers a shield against Israeli criticism.”

In addition to Macron, several other leaders have announced their intent to formally recognize the Palestinian state during the UN summit.

The gestures are seen as a means of increasing pressure on Israel to end the war in Gaza, which was triggered by the October 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas.

The New York Declaration includes discussion of a “deployment of a temporary international stabilization mission” to the battered region under the mandate of the UN Security Council, aiming to support the Palestinian civilian population and facilitate security responsibilities to the Palestinian Authority.

Around three-quarters of the 193 UN member states recognize the Palestinian state proclaimed in 1988 by the exiled Palestinian leadership.

However, after two years of war have ravaged the Gaza Strip, in addition to expanded Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the stated desire by Israeli officials to annex the territory, fears have been growing that the existence of an independent Palestinian state will soon become impossible.

“We are going to fulfill our promise that there will be no Palestinian state,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed Thursday.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, meanwhile, may be prevented from visiting New York for the UN summit after US authorities said they would deny him a visa.


Israel has ‘gone beyond any borders’ with Doha strike, Qatar PM warns UN


Israel’s leaders “do not care” about hostages in Gaza after striking Hamas officials in Doha this week, Qatar’s prime minister told the UN on Thursday. Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani said Israel had “gone beyond any borders” as world powers condemned Tuesday’s deadly attack on the US ally.


Issued on: 12/09/2025 - 
By: FRANCE 24
Video by: Jessica LE MASURIER

Members of the United Nations Security Council attend a meeting on international peace and security in New York City, July 22, 2025. © Brendan McDermid, Reuters
01:31



Israel's leaders showed they “do not care” about the hostages held in the Gaza Strip after its attack this week on Hamas leaders in Doha, Qatar’s prime minister told the United Nations on Thursday, as global powers united to condemn the strike.

With Tuesday’s deadly attack on the US ally, Israel has “gone beyond any borders, any limitations", Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani said at an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council.

The strike killed at least six people as Hamas leaders gathered in Doha to consider a US proposal for a ceasefire in Gaza, risking upending negotiations that have been mediated by Qatar and Egypt and intensifying Israel's growing global isolation.

“Extremists that rule Israel today do not care about the hostages – otherwise, how do we justify the timing of this attack?” Sheikh Mohammed said. Earlier, he told CNN that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was directly to blame for killing “any hope for those hostages.”

In response, Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon said that “history will not be kind to accomplices".

“Either Qatar condemns Hamas, expels Hamas, and brings Hamas to justice. Or Israel will,” Danon said.

Read more Has Qatar suspended its mediation efforts in the Gaza conflict?

Before Sheikh Mohammed spoke before the 15-member council, every country – except for the US – laid the blame for the attack and larger regional conflicts on Israel and echoed doubts about the country's seriousness in securing the return of its hostages.

“It is evident that Israel, the occupying power, is bent on doing everything to undermine and blow up every possibility of peace,” Pakistani Ambassador Asim Iftikhar Ahmad said. “It also raises serious questions whether the return of hostages was indeed a priority.”

Acting US Ambassador Dorothy Shea said “it is inappropriate for any member to use this to question Israel’s commitment to bringing their hostages home".

At the start of the session, Rosemary DiCarlo, the UN's political chief, said Israel's attack “shocked the world” and “potentially opens a new and perilous chapter” in the war in Gaza.

“It was an alarming escalation, especially since it targeted individuals who were reportedly gathered to discuss the latest US proposal for a ceasefire and hostage release deal in Gaza,” she said.

In addition to the UN visit, Qatar also said it was organising an Arab-Islamic summit next week in Doha to discuss the attack.

The Security Council earlier issued a joint statement expressing “deep concern” without mentioning Israel by name and emphasizing “de-escalation.” Approved by the 15-member council, including the US, the statement also conveyed its solidarity with Qatar and the “vital role” it’s played in mediating peace efforts in recent years.

President Donald Trump has walked a delicate line between two major allies following the Israeli attack, saying the unilateral action “did not advance Israel or America’s goals". He has said he's “not thrilled about it” but also suggested that “this unfortunate incident could serve as an opportunity for peace".

Qatar has hosted Hamas's political leadership for years in Doha, in part over a request by the US to encourage negotiations to end the war that started with Hamas’ attack on Israel nearly two years ago.

During the Security Council session, Shea repeated Trump's sentiments and defended Israel's decision to target Hamas leaders.

“Eliminating Hamas, which has profited off of the misery of those living in Gaza, is a worthy goal,” she said.

Hamas spokesperson Fawzy Barhoum said Israel’s attack constituted a “derailment of negotiations efforts” and showed that Netanyahu and his backers “refuse to reach a deal".

Hamas says its senior leaders survived the Doha strike but that five lower-level members were killed. The militant group, which has sometimes only confirmed the assassination of its leaders months later, offered no immediate proof that senior figures had survived.

Funerals for the five Hamas members and a Qatari security officer who were killed in the attack were held on Thursday. Qatar’s ruling emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, attended the service.

The United Arab Emirates said Thursday that more “provocative and hostile rhetoric” from Israel undermines stability and “pushes the region towards extremely dangerous trajectories.”

The UAE's Foreign Ministry said an aggression against any of the six member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council – which includes Qatar – “constitutes an attack on the collective Gulf security framework".

The country, which also blocked Israeli firms from participating in the Dubai Air Show in November, was part of the 2020 Abraham Accords, in which it and three other Arab nations forged ties with Israel.

Meanwhile, thousands of Palestinians continued to flee Gaza City ahead of Israel’s impending offensive there. The numbers have grown in recent days, though many have refused to leave, saying they no longer have the strength or money to relocate.

The operation is aimed at taking over the largest Palestinian city, already devastated from earlier raids and experiencing famine. The offensive, in its early stages, has deepened Israel’s already unprecedented global isolation, which intensified further this week following the strike on Qatar.

Israel has denied there is starvation in Gaza, even after experts last month announced a famine in Gaza City. It says it has allowed enough humanitarian aid in and accuses Hamas of diverting it. UN agencies deny there is any systematic diversion and say Israel’s restrictions and ongoing offensive make it difficult to deliver desperately needed food.

(FRANCE 24 with AP)

'There will be no Palestinian state,' Israel's PM says as he signs West Bank settlement plan

The separation wall next to the Arab neighbourhood of Al-Eizariya near where the Israeli government says housing units will be built as part of the E1 project, 21 August, 2025
Copyright AP Photo

By Gavin Blackburn
Published on 

The plan, on an open tract of land east of Jerusalem, has been under consideration for more than two decades but was frozen due to US pressure during previous administrations.

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has signed an agreement to push ahead with a controversial settlement expansion plan that will cut across land that the Palestinians hope would form the basis of a future state.

"There will not be a Palestinian state," Netanyahu said during a visit to the Maale Adumim settlement in the West Bank on Thursday.

"This place belongs to us...We will safeguard our heritage, our land and our security. We are going to double the city’s population."

Israel's Higher Planning Committee gave final approval for the E1 settlement project in the occupied West Bank in August.

The plan, on an open tract of land east of Jerusalem, has been under consideration for more than two decades but was frozen due to US pressure during previous administrations.

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits the site of a shooting attack at a bus stop in Jerusalem, 8 September, 2025 AP Photo

The Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal under international law. Last year, the International Court of Justice declared in a landmark ruling that Israel should end settlement activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and end its occupation of those areas, as well as Gaza, as soon as possible.

Far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a former settler leader, cast the approval as a rebuke to Western countries that announced their plans to recognise a Palestinian state in recent weeks.

"The Palestinian state is being erased from the table not with slogans but with actions," he said.

"Every settlement, every neighbourhood, every housing unit is another nail in the coffin of this dangerous idea."

Several countries, including the UK and the Netherlands, have in recent weeks moved to sanction Smotrich, as well as National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir for inciting settler violence against Palestinians and calling for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza.

In a post on X, British Foreign Secretary David Lammy condemned the approval of the E1 project, calling it "a flagrant breach of international law".

Germany's Foreign Ministry spokesperson Josef Hinterseher also condemned the move during a news conference.

"The position of the federal government is clear: we strongly reject this approval. The settlement construction violates international law and relevant UN Security Council resolutions," he said.

The location of E1 is significant because it is one of the last geographical links between the major West Bank cities of Ramallah, in the north, and Bethlehem, in the south.

A Palestinian kicks a tear gas canister during an Israeli military raid in the West Bank city of Nablus, 27 August, 2025 AP Photo

The two cities are 22 kilometres apart, but Palestinians traveling between them must take a wide detour and pass through multiple Israeli checkpoints, spending hours on the journey.

The hope was that, in an eventual Palestinian state, the region would serve as a direct link between the cities.

Israel’s expansion of settlements is part of an increasingly dire reality for Palestinians in the occupied West Bank as the world’s attention focuses on the war in Gaza.

There have been marked increases in attacks by settlers on Palestinians, evictions from Palestinian towns, Israeli military operations, and checkpoints that choke freedom of movement.






European Parliament calls for recognition of State of Palestine

The resolution was approved with 305 votes in favour, 151 against and 122 abstentions
Copyright EbS

By Vincenzo Genovese
Published on 

The EU assembly voted in favour of a non-binding resolution, agreed by the centrist majority’s groups.

The European Parliament approved on Thursday a resolution calling on EU member states to “consider recognising the State of Palestine, with a view to achieving the two state solution”.

While the Parliament has supported the “in principle recognition of Palestinian statehood” in the past, this new resolution seems to be a more direct call on national governments to act. The resolution calls on all EU institutions and member states to take diplomatic steps to ensure commitment to a two-state solution.

The resolution was approved with 305 votes in favour, 151 against and 122 abstentions. According to Italian Socialist MEP Nicola Zingaretti, the result was the outcome of thorough negotiations among the political groups on various amendments.

The vote was long and tense, and members of the Parliament even asked for a pause to check the amendment votes on Gaza before proceeding to the final vote on the resolution as a whole.

Another contentious point in the resolution was the use of the term “genocide” to describe Israel’s attacks on Gaza. The wording “genocidal actions” was eventually rejected and excluded from the text.

MEPs have also demanded an immediate and permanent ceasefire, as well as the unconditional release of all Israeli hostages held in Gaza. The resolution recognises Israel’s security and right to self-defence, but stresses that it cannot justify indiscriminate military action in Gaza, and expresses concern over the continuous military operations in the strip.

How many EU countries recognize Palestine?

The 27 member states of the European Union are split over the recognition of a Palestinian state.

Some recognised Palestine in 1988, before they became EU member states: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Hungary, Poland, and Romania.

The former Czechoslovakia also recognised Palestinian statehood in 1988, but when it split in 1992, the Czech Republic did not recognise such a state, while Slovakia did.

In October 2014, Sweden became the first country to recognise Palestine as an EU member state, followed by Spain, Ireland, and Slovenia in 2024.

Other EU countries will follow soon: France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Malta have already announced their plan to recognise Palestine as a state.

At the 1999 European Council in Berlin, national leaders declared themselves ready to “recognise a Palestinian state in due course”, recognising the "unqualified Palestinian right to self-determination, including the option of a state".


US Senators Praised for Report on US Complicity in Israel’s Ethnic Cleansing of Gaza

CAIR urged Congress “to immediately act on their findings by halting all military aid to the Israeli government, enforcing existing US human rights laws, and supporting international accountability efforts.”



Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) released and discussed a report about their recent trip to the Middle East on September 11, 2025.
(Photo: screenshot/C-SPAN)

Jessica Corbett
Sep 12, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


The Council on American-Islamic Relations on Friday commended Sens. Jeff Merkley and Chris Van Hollen for a new report about their recent trip to the Middle East that calls out US complicity in Israel’s ethnic cleansing campaign in the Gaza Strip.

Merkley (D-Ore.) and Van Hollen (D-Md.) “have demonstrated a rare and commendable commitment to truth and accountability in the face of overwhelming political pressure,” said CAIR Maryland director Zainab Chaudry in a statement.


RECOMMENDED...



US Lawmakers Urged to Follow Merkley and Van Hollen’s Lead After Senators Denied Access to Gaza



As Israeli Genocide Intensifies, Majority of Americans Support Palestinian Statehood

“Their report confirms what Palestinians and human rights organizations have been documenting for years: that Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank amount to ethnic cleansing at the very least—and that the US bears responsibility for enabling these atrocities through billions in unconditional military aid and uncritical political support,” Chaudry continued.

“We thank the senators for standing on the side of justice,” she added, “and urge Congress to immediately act on their findings by halting all military aid to the Israeli government, enforcing existing US human rights laws, and supporting international accountability efforts.”

CAIR, the largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy group in the United States, previously praised the pair last month for their attempt to enter or even fly over Gaza, where Israeli forces continue to slaughter and starve Palestinians. The Gaza Health Ministry said Friday that the death toll since October 7, 2023 is at least 64,756, though experts believe the actual figure is far higher.

The government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “is implementing a plan to ethnically cleanse Gaza of Palestinians,” declares the cover page of the senators’ 21-page report, released Thursday. “America is complicit. The world must stop it.”

Merkley said in a statement that “our report details what we saw during our recent trip to the region, including the destruction of Rafah that has reduced the city to rubble, and what we heard from experts in the field about how the Netanyahu government is systematically depriving Palestinians of the essentials needed to live—food, shelter, medicine, and water.”



The report—which followed videos that the senators filmed and shared on social media at various stops—states that “the findings from our trip lead to the inescapable conclusion that the Netanyahu government’s war in Gaza has gone far beyond the targeting of Hamas to imposing collective punishment on the Palestinians there, with the goal of making life for them unsustainable.”

“That is why it restricts the delivery of humanitarian assistance and uses food as a weapon of war,” the publication asserts. It also points to the death toll from the Israeli assault and that “at least 1.9 million people, about 90% of the population, across the Gaza Strip have been displaced during the war. Many have been displaced repeatedly, some 10 times or more.”

Over 90% of Gaza’s homes “have been destroyed or severely damaged,” school buildings and agricultural lands “have been rendered unusable,” and hospitals “have been damaged or destroyed, forcing many to close or operate under severely compromised conditions,” the document notes. Additionally, “essential water and sanitation infrastructure have also collapsed under relentless bombing, leaving much of Gaza without access to clean water or functioning sewage systems.”

“The fact that both the Netanyahu government and now the Trump administration are framing their plan as a call for the ’voluntary’ exodus of Palestinians from Gaza is one of the most fraudulent, sinister, and twisted cover stories ever told,” the report adds. “It is a farce to suggest people who have been subjected to destruction and dehumanization on such a vast scale would be departing Gaza ‘voluntarily.’ The plan is clearly to pressure Palestinians to leave Gaza by making life for them there virtually impossible.”

Van Hollen said that “we hope this report will draw greater attention to these facts both here and around the world,” and pledged that “we will do everything in our power to end America’s ongoing complicity in this humanitarian disaster.”

Under Democratic and Republican administrations, the US has given Israel billions of dollars in annual military aid. Both senators have repeatedly voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) resolutions that would prevent the sale of certain offensive American weaponry to Israel, which have increasingly gained Democratic backers but still lack sufficient support to pass.