There is a particular kind of tragedy that unfolds when good intentions are fed the wrong script. Hollywood has seen it before — the irresistible pull of a neatly packaged narrative, a morality play that casts a prisoner as a prophet and a conflict as a parable. But the global chorus of actors, writers, and musicians who recently called for the release of Marwan Barghouti walked into something far more complicated: a story crafted not to inform, but to activate. More than 200 cultural figures were presented with an emotionally charged narrative: Barghouti as the Palestinian Mandela — a heroic symbol of liberation, a political detainee whose freedom could heal a broken land. It was a narrative engineered with precision. It invoked apartheid, redemption, and the irresistible idea of the righteous prisoner held unjustly by a cruel state. But the story they signed their names to didn’t just omit context. It omitted the dead. Marwan Barghouti is not in prison for his ideology. He is serving five life sentences plus 40 years after being convicted in 2004 for his role in attacks that killed five civilians and attempted to kill others. These are not points of political contention; they are matters of public record. His victims had names. Father Georgios Tsibouktzakis, a Greek Orthodox monk, was shot dead in 2001 while driving near St. George’s Monastery — a man who devoted his life to prayer and his final years to quiet service. Yoela Chen, 45, was murdered at a gas station near Giv’at Ze’ev. Eli Dahan, 53, Yosef Habi, 52, and Police Officer Salim Barakat, 33, were gunned down in the March 2002 attack at Tel Aviv’s Seafood Market restaurant — civilians and a Druze Israeli officer, none of whom had any political role in anything at all. Their lives were not symbols. They were the texture of ordinary days: errands run, meals shared, shifts finished, families waiting at home. They remain absent at every holiday table, every birthday, every unspoken conversation that grief continues on their behalf. And yet — in the celebrity campaign to free Barghouti, these names vanish. Their faces are unimagined. Their humanity is eclipsed by the seductive narrative of the “freedom fighter.” This selective empathy is not an oversight. It is the fingerprint of the modern anti-zionist narrative machine, a hate movement that excels at converting geopolitical complexity into emotionally consumable scripts. It packages the conflict into a digestible drama: one side oppressed, the other villainous; one man heroic, the other side faceless. It knows whom it is speaking to — the artists, the idealists, the storytellers who respond instinctively to the visual of a lone prisoner against the world. This is why the comparison to Mandela was seeded into the campaign from the start. Simona Granati – Corbis/Corbis via Getty Images But Mandela’s greatness was forged in restraint — his refusal to condone violence against civilians, his devotion to reconciliation, his commitment to building a multiracial democracy. Barghouti’s record is not that. His ascent through Tanzim, and his association in analyses with the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, places him in the lineage of armed factions that targeted civilians during the Second Intifada. His conviction for the murders of Father Georgios, Yoela, Eli, Yosef, and Officer Barakat stands unchallenged in the legal record. To equate him with Mandela is not inspiration. It is historical malpractice. None of this diminishes Palestinian suffering under Hamas. The Palestinian people deserve dignity, freedom, safety, functioning governance, and leaders who place their communities’ well-being over factional theatrics. They deserve institutions instead of militias, opportunity instead of stagnation, a future shaped by education, reform, and civil society rather than martyrdom posters, hate, and funerals. But elevating Barghouti as the vessel of that hope does not help Palestinians. It keeps them chained to the very political culture that has failed them for decades — a culture where leaders rise not through governing, but through “resistance” defined as violence; not through building, but through spectacle. There is nothing progressive about resurrecting an old militant as the future of a nation. What Palestinians need — what every people need — is leadership rooted in accountability, anti-corruption, institution-building, economic development, and the protection of civilians. They need a government that values life more than symbolism and the living more than the dead. And yet the world’s cultural elite were persuaded to throw their moral authority behind a man convicted of killing civilians, because the narrative they received was engineered to bypass scrutiny and appeal directly to empathy. Empathy is not the problem. The manipulation of empathy is. The selective framing that presents Barghouti as a moral beacon while erasing his victims is a hallmark of a hate movement masquerading as justice work. Modern anti-zionism often conflates political advocacy with emotional coercion — telling Western audiences that compassion requires elevating those who commit violence, while portraying any demand for accountability as oppression. But true solidarity does not require abandoning truth. And true justice does not require erasing the names of the dead. The celebrity signatories were right about one thing: the region needs renewal. Palestinians desperately need political transformation. But that transformation will not come from releasing a man whose legacy contains the deaths of innocents. It will come from amplifying those working — often quietly, often without fanfare — to build civil society, strengthen institutions, combat corruption, and create genuine pathways to prosperity, liberty, and safety. If the world’s storytellers want to stand on the right side of history, they must first stand on the right side of facts. And the facts demand this: the path to peace is not paved by celebrating those who shed blood. It is paved by elevating those who choose life. If the signatories truly seek justice, the path forward is simple: reconsider and retract your support for Barghouti’s release, and commit to vetting future campaigns that appeal to your empathy while obscuring violence. Direct your influence instead toward the real peace-builders — the Palestinian reformers, journalists, educators, and civic leaders fighting corruption and constructing a future rooted in dignity, agency, and safety. Honor all victims of political violence, Israeli and Palestinian alike, whose lives deserve remembrance rather than erasure. And finally, resist the seduction of myth-making — the heroic scripts that feel righteous but flatten truth. Your voices carry weight; let them be used in service of the living, the grieving, and those who are building a future rather than those who helped destroy it. * * * Elicia Brand is the founder and president of Army of Parents in Loudoun County, VA. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire. Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships

Host Joe Kernen and guest, former SEC Chair Jay Clayton, declared on Wednesday that President Joe Biden should have full and complete ownership of the affordability crisis that is currently facing many Americans. Kernen raised the issue early Wednesday morning on “Squawk Box,” arguing that the economy under President Donald Trump was still struggling under some of the baggage Biden’s economic policies had left behind. WATCH: Joe Kernen: “The affordability issue is from the 22% increase in prices under Biden—full stop.” Former SEC Chair Jay Clayton: “[Trump was] thrown, what I would say, the worst economy for the average American in my adult lifetime.” pic.twitter.com/5vljwi1KPm — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) December 10, 2025 “The affordability issue is from the 22% increase in prices and inflation under Biden, there’s just — full stop, right there. That’s the affordability issue — and you gotta be able to explain that,” Kernen said. “That’s right,” Clayton agreed. “And look, I think that with the economic team — President Trump and the economic team led by Scott Bessent — you have people who very much understand this. And it was a — they were thrown, what I would say, the worst economy for the average American in my adult lifetime, in terms of like you said, the incredible increase in prices at the household.” Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships The Trump administration has been talking a lot about the idea of affordability, particularly in the wake of New York City’s election of Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani, who ran on a platform focused on that. And while not all prices have come down as quickly as many would have liked, gas prices have been on a steady decline, and the rollback of Biden-era “green” energy standards could soon pay off for consumers in the market for new automobiles. “Lower energy, lower regulation… [eliminated] CAFE standards… That’s going to reduce the price of cars by, we estimate, between $1,000-$2,000 for the typical car,” Kevin Hassett explained. NEC Director Kevin Hassett on @POTUS‘ moves to lower costs: “Lower energy, lower regulation… [eliminated] CAFE standards… That’s going to reduce the price of cars by, we estimate, between $1,000-$2,000 for the typical car.” pic.twitter.com/xFspIRrWNg — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) December 9, 2025

Speaking before the House Foreign Affairs Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee, Prof. Eugene Kontorovich, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, contended that, under widely applied principles of international law, Israel has a strong sovereign claim to Judea and Samaria, the Biblical lands historically known as the central highlands north and south of Jerusalem. Kontorovich cited specifically uti possidetis juris, which states that newly-formed states should inherit the administrative boundaries that existed at the moment they gained independence. He noted that the term “West Bank” was introduced only after Jordan conquered and annexed the area in 1950; prior to that, the region was simply part of the British (League of Nations) Mandate for Palestine — given its name by the Romans in vengeance for their war against the Jews, by naming it after the Jews’ ancient enemy, the Philistines — which included all of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. According to Kontorovich, when the Mandate ended in 1948 and Israel declared independence, it inherited the borders of the last highest-level administrative unit. Therefore, he contended that Israel’s borders initially extended to the entirety of what was called Mandatory Palestine, because no separate administrative subdivision existed for Judea, Samaria, or Gaza. Kontorovich emphasized that the doctrine of uti possidetis juris has been applied consistently worldwide — in Latin America, Africa, the post-Soviet space, and the Balkans — often producing borders that include minorities or groups with competing historical or demographic claims. He cited examples such as Crimea and Nagorno-Karabakh to argue that actual control or demographic ties do not override inherited administrative borders. Thus, he maintains that Jordan’s 1948–67 occupation of Judea and Samaria, which he described as unlawful and accompanied by the expulsion of Jews, did not alter Israel’s underlying sovereign rights. Israel’s 1967 capture of the territory, he argued, therefore did not constitute the occupation of foreign land. Kontorovich concluded that while international law does not mandate a Palestinian state or 1949 armistice lines as borders, Israel remains free to negotiate and cede territory if it chooses. Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) presented a historical-political narrative emphasizing repeated Arab rejection of partition. He noted that when Britain withdrew in 1948, a Jewish state (Israel) and an Arab state (Jordan) effectively emerged, but Arab actors sought to eliminate Israel, fueling the ongoing conflict. Fine stated that the distinct Palestinian national identity arose later to justify a third state and criticized expectations that Israel relinquish territory gained in defensive wars, contrasting this with American and broader historical practice. He cited Israel’s 2005 disengagement from Gaza as an example of territorial concessions leading to intensified violence. Turning to Judea and Samaria, he stressed the area’s deep Jewish historical significance and highlighted security concerns, while dispelling the idea of Israeli “apartheid,” as he pointed out: We hear about the apartheid state of Israel, and it is partly true. There is apartheid in Israel. I want to tell you, as I was driving through Judea and Samaria, a sign that I saw … basically said, “In this area, Jews may not enter.” … And the sign literally says, in English, in Hebrew, and in Arabic, Jews may not go here. I’m not aware of anywhere that is controlled by Israel where they say Arabs cannot go, where they say Christians cannot go. In December of 2024, Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) introduced a bill in the Senate to require all official U.S. documents and materials to use the historically accurate term “Judea and Samaria” instead of the “West Bank.” Referring to Judea and Samaria as the ‘West Bank’ is a slap in the face to historical truth. It’s time to call this region by its rightful name and stop playing into anti-Israel propaganda.https://t.co/tYwYMZkGMJ — Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) December 5, 2024 The bill, titled the “Retiring the Egregious Confusion Over the Genuine Name of Israel’s Zone of Influence by Necessitating Government-use of Judea and Samaria (RECOGNIZING Judea and Samaria) Act,” matched legislation in the House sponsored by Reps. Claudia Tenney (R-NY),  Randy Weber (R-TX), and Anthony D’Esposito (R-NY). “The Jewish people’s legal and historic rights to Judea and Samaria goes back thousands of years. The U.S. should stop using the politically charged term West Bank to refer to the biblical heartland of Israel,” Cotton stated. “The Israeli people have an undeniable and indisputable historical and legal claim over Judea and Samaria, and at this critical moment in history, the United States must reaffirm this,”  Tenney echoed. “This bill reaffirms Israel’s rightful claim to its territory. I remain committed to defending the integrity of the Jewish state and fully supporting Israel’s sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.” The bill states that the U.S. government should “refer to the land annexed by Israel from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War by its historical names of ‘Judea and Samaria,’ with the land south of Jerusalem being considered ‘Judea’ and the land north of Jerusalem being considered ‘Samaria.’” The great historian Flavius Josephus wrote, “Now as to the country of Samaria, it lies between Judea and Galilee.” As for Judea, Josephus explained, “In the limits of Samaria and Judea lies the village Anuath, which is also named Borceos. This is the northern boundary of Judea. The southern parts of Judea, if they be measured lengthways, are bounded by a Village adjoining to the confines of Arabia; the Jews that dwell there call it Jordan. However, its breadth is extended from the river Jordan to Joppa.” Josephus also explained how Jerusalem was central in Judea, writing, “The city Jerusalem is situated in the very middle; on which account some have, with sagacity enough, called that city the Navel of the country. Nor indeed is Judea destitute of such delights as come from the sea, since its maritime places extend as far as Ptolemais: it was parted into eleven portions, of which the royal city Jerusalem was the supreme, and presided over all the neighboring country, as the head does over the body.” Virtually all of the events in the Old Testament occurred in Judea and Samaria; Hebron is considered the burial place of the Biblical patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and where King David was crowned; Shiloh was where the Tabernacle rested for roughly 370 years; Joseph, who became the Egyptian pharaoh’s right-hand man, is buried in Shechem; Elon Moreh is where the Bible says God promised the Land of Israel to Abraham; and David fought Goliath in the Valley of Elah. These are just some of the Jewish biblical connections to Judea and Samaria.

'Can I have one thing?'

'They were not excited to hear it'

'You are selling out your neighbors'

She was supposed to serve a 6.5 year sentence

'Largest one ever seized'

'NDAA in current form is NO GO'

When I was 16, my hometown finally got HBO on our cable system. One of the first movies I saw was “The Blues Brothers”. In the infamous scene at Bob’s Country Bunker, Jake tells the club owner that they are the Country and Western band, “The Good Old Boys,” even though they don’t really know any country songs. When the Blues Brothers Band launches into “Gimme Some Lovin’”, they are booed profusely, and the owner of the bar turns off the lights. Jake then comes up with the idea of doing the theme from “Rawhide” to the delight of the The post Hangin’ On With The Colonel: Scott Ward Remembers Steve Cropper appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.