A Turning Point in the Middle East

As a Naval Intelligence Officer, the Middle East was a central focus of my military service. I’ve walked the ground there and felt the weight of its history and heartbreak. I witnessed the aftermath of the 1983 Beirut bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines. I’ve traveled through Israel and the West Bank, observing the fragile layers of conflict and coexistence firsthand, and visited Israeli naval ships. During the first Persian Gulf War, I served in the Pentagon, tasked with developing strategic targets and assessing bomb damage against Saddam Hussein’s regime.

I have never been as optimistic about the future of the Middle East as I am now.

That may sound surprising, even naive to some, especially given the current headlines. But I believe we are witnessing a moment of realignment—one that could finally weaken the forces of extremism and unlock a more prosperous and peaceful future for the region. Much of this hope stems from the disruption of conventional, often failed, foreign policy approaches. For that, I give significant credit to President Donald Trump. Whatever one thinks of him, it was his willingness to break with the stale orthodoxy of Middle East policy that created the conditions for the Abraham Accords—and for what might now follow.

President Donald J. Trump, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bahrain Dr. Abdullatif bin Rashid Al-Zayani, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of Foreign Affairs for the United Arab Emirates Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyani sign the Abraham Accords Tuesday, Sept. 15, 2020, on the South Lawn of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Tia Dufour)

What comes after the war between Israel and Iran?

That is the question we must now ask, even as the Israeli Air Force continues to dismantle Iran’s missile infrastructure and its deeply buried nuclear capabilities. The strategic reality in the Middle East is changing—perhaps more quickly than most anticipated. The war that many feared might explode into a regional inferno has instead begun to extinguish the fire at its source. Iran, long the arsonist of the Middle East, is weakened—militarily, diplomatically, and perhaps most importantly, internally.

This moment did not arrive suddenly. The trajectory began with the brutal October 7, 2023, attack by Hamas on Israeli civilians. This horror reawakened the world to the cost of appeasing extremists and ignoring the malign influence of Tehran. What followed was not merely a war in Gaza, but a global reassessment of Iran’s destabilizing role, and an opening to reorder the region around a more stable axis: peace, prosperity, and moderation.

When I wrote last year that Hamas’s attack might inadvertently lead to long-term gains for peace, it was not an idle hope. It was a recognition that Iran had overplayed its hand. The Abraham Accords—those groundbreaking agreements between Israel and Arab states—were never just about diplomacy. They were about the region's future, and Iran knew it. Its proxies—Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis—exist to forestall that future. But now, those proxies lie in ruin. Israel has systematically degraded Hamas in Gaza. Hezbollah’s effectiveness is blunted. The Houthis are isolated. And now Iran itself finds its air defenses shattered and its nuclear program under direct assault.

Israel, perceiving an existential threat and an opportunity, has taken bold and unilateral action. It did so not out of bravado, but necessity. It perceives Iran’s progress toward nuclear weapons—paired with a growing arsenal of long-range ballistic missiles—as a point of no return. The world should not be surprised that Israel acted. What is surprising is the remarkable success of operation Rising Lion. With no direct U.S. military involvement, Israel has achieved near-total air supremacy over Iran. It has neutralized key launch sites and decimated command-and-control nodes and leadership. Iran, despite decades of bluster, has been unable to mount a credible defense, and its indiscriminate missile attacks on civilians are diminishing daily as Israel destroys each launcher that fires a ballistic missile.

Donald Trump, aligned with Israel's strategic thinking, tried for sixty days to reach a peaceful dismantling of Iran’s nuclear activities. When diplomacy failed, Israel waited one more day—and then acted. That action may be remembered not just as a military strike, but as the beginning of the end for the radical Shiite regime that has strangled Iran’s great civilization and tormented its neighbors for over forty years.

Here lies the opportunity. If Iran’s theocratic regime cannot recover, or if it loses legitimacy among its people, the regional order will no longer revolve around a belligerent, revolutionary state. Even if the mullahs survive, the damage done to Iran will create an extended period of opportunity for the region to coalesce around the moderate powers of the Middle East—Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, and Israel—each of which has a vested interest in security, economic development, and regional integration.

The Abraham Accords were not a historical anomaly. They were the first genuine framework in decades that acknowledged the failure of the old paradigms: the illusions of a peace process held hostage by maximalist demands and the fantasy that terror groups would moderate with power. Instead, the Accords moved beyond grievance and ideology, embracing opportunity and coexistence.

In early June 2025, Donald Trump made a high-profile visit to the Middle East, meeting with leaders in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Qatar. His purpose was to reassert the foundational principles of the Abraham Accords and emphasize that regional stability, mutual security, and economic development are the driving interests uniting moderate nations. By engaging both longtime allies and key regional players, Trump reinforced the idea that lasting peace comes not through appeasing extremists, but by empowering those committed to modernization and cooperation.

If Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities are neutralized—and if the regime itself begins to falter—it will send a powerful message: that exporting terrorism and pursuing extreme ideologies is not a viable path. For Iran’s people, it may offer an opening to reclaim their nation from the clerics who hijacked it in 1979. For Lebanon, it may offer hope of a future not controlled by Hezbollah. For Yemen, a reprieve from endless war. For Iraq and Syria, the potential to rebuild sovereign politics not beholden to Tehran’s influence.

For the Palestinians, this could be the moment to reset their future as well. With Hamas diminished and Iran no longer funding rejectionism, space may open for pragmatic leadership in both Gaza and the West Bank—leaders who reject the nihilism of “resistance” and seek a real path to nationhood within a shared regional vision. Further still, imagine Iran’s brilliant youth free to contribute to this vision, rather than being conscripted into martyrdom by decrepit clerics. Imagine a regional security framework that finally isolates the remaining extremists, rather than empowering them.

Of course, none of this is guaranteed. As all military planners know, the enemy gets a vote. Could Iran take dramatic action and launch a ballistic missile with a dirty bomb at its tip filled with radioactive materials and escalate the violence?  Chinese transport planes are landing in Tehran. Are they evacuating their citizens, or providing additional support to the Iranian regime, or helping them to contain nuclear materials?  We do not know. History rarely moves in straight lines. But moments like this—moments of transformation—do not come often. They are born of painful clarity. They require courageous leadership. And they depend on the will of nations to align their futures not with the slogans of the past, but with the possibilities of tomorrow.

The United States must recognize this inflection point and act accordingly. There is an understandable reluctance among many Americans—particularly among a growing populist branch of the MAGA movement—to engage in yet another Middle Eastern conflict. These Americans, wearied by two decades of "forever wars," see no benefit in extending U.S. power abroad. Tucker Carlson has emerged as the most vocal advocate of this view.  

Their skepticism is not without merit. They watched the chaos of Iraq, the futility of Afghanistan, the lies that led to both, and they are right to demand prudence and accountability. But what is unfolding today is not Iraq or Afghanistan. This is not nation-building, nor is it a vague war on terror. This is a targeted campaign by a regional ally, Israel, against the most dangerous state sponsor of terrorism on the planet—a regime racing toward nuclear weapons and committed to the destruction of both Israel and American influence in the Middle East. A regime that plotted the assassination of President Trump.

Donald Trump understands this distinction. Though he rightly ran against the globalist mindset that dragged America into endless wars, he also knows that strategic disengagement is not the same as strategic blindness. His Abraham Accords were not born from idealism but from a realist’s understanding of opportunity. A secure, integrated Middle East—bound by shared interests, economic development, and deterrence of Iranian aggression—was the vision. The current Israeli campaign, ironically, may make that vision even more attainable.

Trump is not likely to align himself with the isolationist wing of the MAGA base on this issue. He gave diplomacy a genuine chance, offering Iran a two-month window to avoid this escalation. When that failed, he understood what Israel had to do and signaled quiet support. Though there is no direct US military action in Iran, the US is likely sharing intelligence and is probably integrating its missile detection capabilities with the Israelis. However, there are only minimal reports of the use of US defense missile systems, whether ground-based THAAD or sea-based systems.  US bunker buster bombs may be needed to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities deep in underground bunkers at Fordow. 

If the Abraham Accords can be expanded in the aftermath of the war—if Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and others can stand firmly together with Israel in a post-Iran future—it will be one of the most significant geopolitical transformations in the modern era. And if Trump is the architect of that shift, history will remember him not just as a disruptor, but as a statesman who redrew the map of the Middle East without the need for American boots on the ground.

What comes after this conflict may be something no one thought possible just a few years ago: a Middle East not dominated by jihadist ideologies or cold war politics, but by shared prosperity, modernity, and mutual security.

May we seize the moment while it is still in our hands.

****

SHARING: Please consider sharing these blog posts via social media or email if you find them interesting by providing a link to either https://www.libertytakeseffort.com or https://libertytakeseffort.substack.com
DISTRIBUTION: Liberty Takes Effort shifted its distribution from social media to email delivery via Substack as a Newsletter. If you would like to receive distribution, please email me at libertytakeseffort@gmail.com To see archived blog posts since 2014 visit www.libertytakeseffort.com.
DISCLAIMER: The entire content of this website and newsletter are based solely upon the opinions and thoughts of the author unless otherwise noted. It is not considered advice for action by readers in any realm of human activity. Its purpose is to stimulate discussion on topics of interest to readers to further inform the public square. Use of any information on this site is at the sole choice and risk of the reader.

No Kings - or Just the Wrong King?

In 2014, I wrote a post titled “Less like a president than a king,” warning of the long, unchecked expansion of executive power in the United States. I made that case during the Obama administration, when the Supreme Court unanimously rebuked the president for exceeding his constitutional authority. Back then, there was little appetite on the political left to hear concerns about presidential overreach, because their party held power.

Fast forward to today, and protests have erupted under the banner “No Kings.” Predictably concentrated in deep-blue cities, these demonstrations have been organized or supported by a who's  who of progressive activist groups: Indivisible, MoveOn, the ACLU, unions, and others. 

The message, at first glance, is a noble one—opposition to authoritarian rule. Many participants are sincere and good people, and I do not seek to offend them or diminish their participation in a cherished First Amendment liberty to protest. I even admire them for engaging. However, these protests are not about tyranny; they are about partisanship. They are not a spontaneous defense of liberty, but an organized campaign effort. 

The slogan “No Kings” is not a call for constitutional restraint—it’s a campaign slogan, just like “Move On.” “Resist” and “Black Lives Matter,” formulated by powerful organizers who have developed networks, communications strategies, funding pipelines, and local chapters precisely to mobilize around virtually any progressive cause at short notice. 

The irony, of course, is that the expansion of executive power has been building for more than a century. It accelerated dramatically under the Obama administration, continued under Trump, and intensified even further under Joe Biden. Presidents from both parties have tested these boundaries. Richard Nixon's abuses of power gave birth to the term "imperial presidency" itself, and George W. Bush’s post-9/11 expansions of surveillance and wartime authority marked another significant leap. Each new president inherits the tools left behind by the previous one and builds upon them. Each new party in power forgets the warnings it once issued when the other party held the White House.

To be clear, many Americans attending No Kings protests may be sincere. They may truly fear the return of Donald Trump. They may honestly believe that democracy is under threat. But sincerity without consistency is not a principle; it’s partisanship. These voices were largely silent during the Obama and Biden expansions of federal authority. They did not take to the streets when executive orders flowed freely, when mandates came down from on high, or when the press often celebrated unilateral action as necessary in the face of a “do-nothing Congress.”

These protests, like so many before them, aren’t changing anyone’s mind and may be counterproductive. They’re not aimed at persuading the skeptical middle. They’re not trying to win over voters with facts or arguments. They are public rituals of confirmation bias - emotional reinforcement masquerading as civic engagement.

For many Americans in the political center, the symbolism of these protests is increasingly alienating. The imagery on display rarely includes the American flag, considered oppressive by many on the left. Instead, one sees a chaotic sea of interest group banners—Pride flags, trans flags, Palestinian flags, Mexican flags, and countless emblems representing causes few Americans even recognize. There are no appeals to common citizenship, no unifying symbols, no sense that this is a protest meant for everyone. The message unintentionally sent is not one of unity or constitutional fidelity, but of ideological separatism. 

The message of alienation is all the more potent because of the frequency. Worse yet, the frequency and sameness of left-wing protests have led to fatigue. When every issue becomes a “moral emergency,” and every Saturday brings another march or rally, people tune out. The theatrics become tired. The outrage loses its force. Protest, once a powerful form of dissent, has become just another background noise in the progressive media ecosystem.

In the latest round of demonstrations, violent outbreaks occurred in Portland, Los Angeles, Denver, and other cities. The press often frames the violence as separate from the “main protest.” But the public is not fooled when a reporter stands in front of a burning building, saying the demonstration was largely peaceful. When bricks fly, windows shatter, and police are attacked, Americans notice. And because these incidents almost always accompany left-wing protests, many conclude that the organizers and their allies quietly tolerate the violence.

Every broken window and toppled statue in the name of protest becomes another brick in Trump’s political comeback. These spectacles don’t discredit him—they validate the fears that led many voters to support him in the first place. The more chaotic these protests appear, the more persuasive he becomes as a bulwark against cultural disorder.

Far from scaring people into voting against Trump, the disorder reminds voters why they turned to him in the first place: because they saw in him a bulwark against the very cultural chaos these protests now represent. The more these spectacles escalate, the more the center recoils. 

If concern about tyranny only surfaces when one’s political opponents hold office, it is not actually a concern about tyranny. It is a concern about losing.

The Founders feared that liberty would not be lost all at once but eroded slowly by the unchecked ambitions of government factions. The presidency was never meant to be the center of gravity in our constitutional system. But today, both parties have helped transform it into exactly that.

The truth is this: the problem is not who wears the crown. The problem is that we have allowed the presidency to become a throne. Both parties have contributed to the growth of executive power. And unless Americans of all stripes recognize that danger, regardless of who holds office, we will not preserve the republic.

“No Kings” is a compelling slogan. But until we mean it—every time—it’s just another partisan costume in a very old play.

****

SHARING: Please consider sharing these blog posts via social media or email if you find them interesting by providing a link to either https://www.libertytakeseffort.com or https://libertytakeseffort.substack.com
DISTRIBUTION: Liberty Takes Effort shifted its distribution from social media to email delivery via Substack as a Newsletter. If you would like to receive distribution, please email me at libertytakeseffort@gmail.com To see archived blog posts since 2014 visit www.libertytakeseffort.com.
DISCLAIMER: The entire content of this website and newsletter are based solely upon the opinions and thoughts of the author unless otherwise noted. It is not considered advice for action by readers in any realm of human activity. Its purpose is to stimulate discussion on topics of interest to readers to further inform the public square. Use of any information on this site is at the sole choice and risk of the reader.

From Ivy Halls: The Collapse of Moral Clarity and Truth on College Campuses

At recent graduation ceremonies at prestigious universities such as Harvard, MIT, Yale, Columbia, Dartmouth, Cornell, NYU, UC Berkeley, and George Washington University, political activism continued to dominate as students disrupted these events. Kafias were worn, Palestinian flags were flown, diplomas were burned, walkouts occurred, and chants praised those who agreed with them or condemned those who sought moderation.

Some student commencement speakers took to the podium to “go off script,” using their moment in the spotlight to accuse Israel of genocide and demand a “free Palestine.” These comments were not fringe outbursts; they were largely met with applause and praise from audiences that included faculty, students, and families. In the most elite institutions of the Western world, these chants of “resistance” have become a new moral currency.

The actions and words of students reveal something far more troubling than youthful ignorance: they expose a profound and deliberate disconnect from history, morality, and truth. These students, graduates of some of the most prestigious universities in America, seem completely unaware of efforts to establish a Palestinian state over the past 75 years. Each time, Palestinian leadership has rejected peace in favor of violence or political intransigence.

Yitzak Rabin, Bill Clinton, Yassir Arafat - White House, 1993

The concept of a two-state solution is not a new one. It was first proposed in 1947 when the United Nations suggested partitioning British Palestine into two states - one Jewish, one Arab. Jewish leaders accepted, while Palestinian and Arab leaders rejected the proposal. Subsequently, five Arab armies attacked the newly established state of Israel. This moment set the tone for decades of resistance to Israel’s very existence.

Since then, peace has been offered, and refused, several times:

Council on Foreign Relations

In every case, the consistent theme has been the Palestinian leadership’s refusal to accept a Jewish state under any circumstances. It’s not about borders. It’s not about settlements. It’s about the very existence of Israel.

This is the unspoken truth behind the slogan “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free.” It does not envision peaceful coexistence; rather, it envisions a Palestinian state replacing Israel, stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. It is a call for elimination, not liberation.

While critics often paint Israel as an intransigent or expansionist state, history tells a different story, one of pragmatism and a willingness to negotiate even after enduring repeated acts of aggression. Following the coordinated Arab invasion that immediately followed its founding in 1948, and later conflicts such as the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel took defensive control of strategic territories like the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. Yet Israel has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not seek land for land’s sake. In 1979, it signed a historic peace treaty with Egypt, the first between Israel and an Arab nation, returning the Sinai Peninsula as part of that agreement. Similarly, Israel forged a peace treaty with Jordan in 1994, further reinforcing its commitment to peaceful coexistence with neighboring states willing to accept its right to exist.

More recently, the Abraham Accords marked a significant breakthrough in Middle East diplomacy. In 2020, Israel normalized relations with several Gulf States, including the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, followed by agreements with Sudan and Morocco. These accords shattered the longstanding myth that no Arab nation could make peace with Israel until a Palestinian state was created. In fact, Israel was on the verge of a groundbreaking normalization agreement with Saudi Arabia in 2023, a potential game-changer in the region. That progress was intentionally derailed by Hamas through its brutal October 7th attack, designed not only to provoke war but to sabotage the very prospects of regional peace.

The pattern is clear: Israel has repeatedly extended its hand in peace to its neighbors, often at significant strategic cost. Hamas, by contrast, offers no such hand - only rockets, tunnels, and hostage-taking. The difference in intent could not be more stark. Israel seeks a future where Jews and Arabs alike can live in dignity and peace. Hamas seeks only to destroy, destabilize, and dominate. Any honest evaluation of the region must reckon with this truth.

It is impossible to witness the images coming out of Gaza, particularly those of dead or wounded women and children, families torn apart, and entire neighborhoods reduced to rubble, without feeling sorrow, horror, and grief. These are human tragedies, and they should move us. They should prompt moral reflection. Israel itself has acknowledged the suffering of civilians and claims to have taken steps to minimize harm where possible, including issuing evacuation warnings when targeting militants embedded within civilian areas. However, war, especially against a group like Hamas that deliberately uses civilians as shields, results in devastation. Even if Israel’s estimates are accurate, claiming 20,000 Hamas fighters killed and a roughly 1:1 civilian-to-combatant ratio, that still means 20,000 innocent lives lost.

Many Americans are moved by what they see and hear—not because they endorse terrorism, but because they instinctively sympathize with the vulnerable. Images of grieving mothers, injured children, and families forced from their homes evoke a powerful emotional response. That compassion is not misplaced. However, it must be accompanied by a deeper understanding of the political and military context—how Hamas deliberately provokes this suffering, embeds its fighters in schools and hospitals, and rejects any vision of coexistence with Israel.

Some critics also highlight the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank as a long-term erosion of the prospects for a Palestinian state. They argue that the remaining territory resembles Swiss cheese more than a viable nation. There’s truth in this concern. However, it must also be recognized that the Palestinians have rejected multiple peace offers, in 1948 and in later years, that would have granted them significantly more land and autonomy than they currently possess or can hope to achieve. Too often, the Palestinian leadership, both Fatah and Hamas, has pursued maximalist goals instead of pragmatic compromise, only to diminish future potential opportunities. The tragedy is that generations of ordinary Palestinians have paid the price for those decisions.

The power asymmetry between Israel and the Palestinians is evident, but power alone does not dictate moral right or wrong. Following the horrific attack on October 7th, Israel is determined to ensure that such an atrocity never happens again. This is not brutality for its own sake; rather, it is the logical and, from Israel’s perspective, necessary act of a nation defending its people from annihilation. Peace cannot be achieved while Hamas rules Gaza. While we mourn the innocent lives lost, we must not forget who ignited this war and what must change for peace to have a chance to emerge from the ruins.

The outrage over the destruction and loss of innocent life in war is both proper and necessary. However, ignoring or distorting the root cause represents a moral failure in itself. While we should mourn the deaths of innocent children, we must also speak plainly: the blame lies squarely with the Palestinian leadership. These leaders have rejected every offer of peace and statehood, indoctrinate children to hate and kill Jews, glorify martyrdom through suicide bombings, divert humanitarian aid to build terror tunnels and rockets, and sabotage any progress toward Arab-Israeli reconciliation through acts of barbarism - such as raping, murdering, and taking hostages in the name of resistance.

Israel has made significant efforts to reduce the deaths of innocent people in the war. The casualties that occur are not due to a lack of effort on its part, but rather to Hamas, which views the deaths of children as a propaganda tool to diminish Western support for Israel. Their tunnel access often leads directly into a child’s bedroom in a civilian home. They do not allow civilians to seek protection within the extensive tunnel network they have constructed. They confiscate humanitarian aid for themselves and their fighters, denying it to civilians. To Hamas, the civilian population is merely a tool for propaganda. Images of dead Palestinian children are a resource, and teenage suicide bombers are martyrs for the cause.

The path to a permanent cease fire and beginning the long process of recovery is clear, though not easy. If Hamas were to release the remaining hostages, many of whom are feared dead due to mistreatment or execution, and renounce its charter calling for Israel’s destruction, the immediate justification for Israel’s military campaign would vanish.

However, more fundamentally, real progress toward permanent peace would require the Palestinian people, particularly in Gaza, to reject Hamas’s violent and absolutist leadership in favor of representatives truly committed to peace, coexistence, and governance rather than terror. Only then could credible negotiations begin, talks not rooted in fantasy or denial of Israel’s existence, but in mutual recognition and a desire to end the bloodshed. Such a shift would not erase the pain of the past months, but it would open the door to rebuilding Gaza and rekindling the long-dormant vision of a viable Palestinian state living peacefully alongside Israel.

So, how did we get to a point where Ivy League graduates cheer slogans that mirror the objectives of terror organizations like Hamas? The answer lies not only in politics or foreign policy, it stems from the ideological takeover of our higher education system.

For decades, American universities, especially elite institutions, have nurtured a radical worldview that rebranded Marxist ideology through the lens of identity and justice. After the revolutionary student movements of the 1960s and ’70s failed to dismantle American institutions through protest, violence, and cultural rebellion, many of their leaders simply shifted their strategy. Figures like Angela Davis, once associated with the Communist Party and the Black Panther movement, and Eldridge Cleaver, a former Minister of Information for the Panthers, exchanged the streets for the seminar room. They, along with others, entered academia and cultural institutions not to abandon their mission, but to advance it through education and indoctrination.

At the intellectual core of this transition was Herbert Marcuse, a Frankfurt School Marxist who became a guru to many New Left radicals. Marcuse championed the idea of “repressive tolerance," the belief that free speech and liberal norms must be curtailed to suppress dominant (i.e., capitalist or Western) ideologies. He and others laid the groundwork for a takeover of institutions, beginning with schools of education. There, future teachers, administrators, and professors were infused with a radical framework that rejected traditional American values in favor of critical theory and anti-capitalist identity politics.

Economic class struggle was reinterpreted as a cultural and social power struggle. The dichotomy of the proletariat versus the bourgeoisie evolved into a worldview of oppressors versus the oppressed—based on race, gender, sexuality, and later, intersectionality, a framework advanced by scholars such as Kimberlé Crenshaw. This concept gained traction in the mainstream through modern ideological entrepreneurs like Ibram X. Kendi, whose mantra that “the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination” exemplifies the new orthodoxy.

From the humanities to the sciences, from faculty hiring to student admissions, this worldview has been institutionalized through Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) bureaucracies. These DEI structures now serve as ideological enforcement arms, silencing dissent and prioritizing activism over inquiry. The death of George Floyd in 2020 acted as an accelerant, propelling this ideology into overdrive—not only across college campuses but also into corporate boardrooms, K–12 classrooms, the media, and even the highest levels of government.

A central pillar of intersectional Marxist ideology is anti-colonialism—a worldview that interprets historical grievances through the prism of imperial conquest and racial oppression. On American college campuses, this appears in symbolic gestures like land acknowledgments, where institutions routinely recite the names of Native tribes that once inhabited the land. These acknowledgments, though often sincere in intent, suggest an absolutist moral claim: that any land ever taken by one people from another is illegitimate and should be regarded as stolen.

But if this principle were applied universally, the entire structure of global civilization would collapse. Human history is a record of migrations, conquests, collapses, and the rise of new political entities. No culture, religion, or people has a monopoly on conquest—empires have risen and fallen in every region of the world. To suggest that only Western colonialism is illegitimate is to ignore the conquests of the Arab empires, the Ottoman Turks, the Mongols, the Moors, and the Islamic Caliphates that expanded into lands inhabited by Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, and others. If we follow this logic to its extreme, must the world unwind thousands of years of history to return land to some imagined “original” owner?

This selective historicism is especially evident in the debate over Israel. Campus activists often cite the post-World War II partition plan and the subsequent creation of Israel as a colonial imposition. Yet they overlook that the Jewish presence in the region predates not only the modern Palestinian identity but also the Islamic faith itself. They ignore that the Ottoman Empire controlled the region for centuries, and that before that, the land changed hands in countless conflicts and empires. These complex histories are erased in favor of a simplistic binary: Israel is the “colonizer,” Palestinians the “colonized.” Such reductionism may serve activist slogans, but it distorts both history and the prospects for peace.

The consequences of this decades-long ideological capture became starkly visible on October 7, 2023, when Hamas launched its brutal terror attack on Israeli civilians - murdering families, raping women, and taking hostages, including children and the elderly. Instead of uniting in moral clarity to condemn such atrocities, many students and faculty, steeped in years of identity-based indoctrination, responded with moral confusion or even justification. To them, the violence was not senseless terror, but the “resistance” of the oppressed. Conditioned by an academic culture that frames global conflicts through the lens of oppressor versus oppressed, many interpreted the massacre not as a violation upon humanity but as a predictable, even righteous, response to systemic power imbalance. This is the bitter fruit of the ideological revolution that reshaped our universities - a worldview so warped that it can excuse barbarity if committed by those cast as victims.

The October 7th attack by Hamas was not merely an act of terror - it was a calculated attempt to disrupt the growing normalization of relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors, particularly the U.S.–brokered negotiations with Saudi Arabia. Hamas understood that a formal Saudi-Israeli agreement would signal a significant shift in the region - a broad Arab-Israeli alliance based on mutual interests, security, and economic cooperation. To undermine that momentum, Hamas unleashed atrocities so brutal that they anticipated Israel would respond with overwhelming force, hoping the retaliatory devastation in Gaza would inflame global opinion, particularly in the West, and isolate Israel diplomatically.

They failed. While the images of destruction in Gaza stirred sympathy and protests across U.S. campuses and Western cities, the regional strategy backfired. Hezbollah, although engaged, was contained. The Houthis faced direct confrontation and degradation. Most importantly, Iran, Hamas’ main sponsor and the architect of this axis of terror, suffered a significant blow to its regional influence and defensive capabilities. Israel, supported by its technological advantage and regional cooperation, demonstrated its ability not only to defend its territory but also to project power against its enemies. Iran now finds itself more vulnerable than ever, as Arab states like the UAE, Bahrain, and even Saudi Arabia continue to seek quieter paths towards cooperation with Israel.

These Arab governments must, for domestic reasons, express sympathy for the Palestinians. However, their actions speak louder than words. None have moved to absorb large numbers of Gazans, and none are offering to host Hamas leaders. They know from experience that the radical Islamist vision of Hamas—an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood—is fundamentally incompatible with their own goals of regional stability, economic modernization, and peaceful coexistence.

This is the aspect that many Western student protesters and activists fail to understand. By embracing Hamas as a symbol of anti-colonial resistance, they are aligning themselves not with peace or justice but with a violent ideology rejected by nearly every responsible state actor in the region. Hamas does not represent the future of the Palestinians; it represents an obstacle. Those genuinely committed to justice and a two-state solution must stop romanticizing terror and start confronting the hard truth: peace cannot coexist with extremism.

Less than two weeks ago, outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C., two young Israeli embassy employees were gunned down in cold blood. They were not soldiers. They were not on a battlefield. They were murdered on the streets of the United States capital in broad daylight. As Jeffrey Herf wrote in The Free Press, this was “the first lethal attack on Jews in the United States carried out by a person who emerged from the leftist-Islamist climate in the universities before and since October 7.” 

Yesterday, just eleven days later, an illegal alien from Egypt attacked a group participating in a run in Boulder, Colorado, calling for the return of Israeli hostages held by Hamas. He ignited eight people on fire using a makeshift flamethrower and Molotov cocktails. In both cases, the perpetrators chanted, “Free Palestine.”

These were not isolated incidents. They are part of a rising wave of antisemitic violence that has surged since the Hamas massacre of October 7. It is no longer fringe - it is fashionable. Hatred of Israel, once confined to radical corners, is now cloaked in academic jargon and chanted by the sons and daughters of privilege.

These murders and assaults, along with the climate that made it possible, are the poisoned fruit of an educational system hijacked by ideology and reliant on the teats of foreign donations and the full tuition paid by foreign students. An assassin may have pulled the trigger, but the culture that taught him to hate was nurtured in the lecture halls of our universities.

It’s time to hold higher education accountable. Many of our colleges and universities have turned into activist factories instead of centers of learning. They’ve exchanged critical thinking for groupthink, historical analysis for propaganda, and moral courage for performative outrage. The intersectional mob needs to be confronted. These institutions must be reclaimed, reformed, or replaced.

There has been some delayed reflection on college campuses following the turmoil of protests in 2023 and 2024, along with a growing recognition that antisemitism is a serious and escalating issue. However, that soul-searching only began after a few university presidents were compelled to address the matter under intense scrutiny during congressional testimony. The Trump administration has since exerted pressure on colleges and universities to take concrete action, demanding they confront antisemitism, dismantle DEI bureaucracies, and eliminate all forms of institutionalized racism. Some institutions have started to comply, though often with reluctance; others continue to resist. Superficial changes and minor disciplinary actions against wayward commencement speakers will not resolve a deeply systemic problem. Restoring integrity to higher education will necessitate a sustained effort—and likely a decade or more of serious reform.

Silence is complicity. The blood of two young Israelis in D.C., the hundreds massacred on October 7, the deaths of thousands of innocents in Israel and Gaza, and the rising tide of antisemitism on our campuses demand more than outrage—they demand truth, courage, and accountability.

We must speak out—but that is not enough. We must also take responsibility for fully informing ourselves about the history and context of the world we live in, especially regarding life and death, war and peace, freedom and tyranny. We owe it to those who were murdered. We owe it to the innocent. We owe it to the truth. And we owe it to the next generation of Americans, who deserve institutions of learning dedicated to the honest pursuit of knowledge, not seminaries of Marxist activism and anti-Western propaganda.

****

SHARING: Please consider sharing these blog posts via social media or email if you find them interesting by providing a link to either https://www.libertytakeseffort.com or https://libertytakeseffort.substack.com
DISTRIBUTION: Liberty Takes Effort shifted its distribution from social media to email delivery via Substack as a Newsletter. If you would like to receive distribution, please email me at libertytakeseffort@gmail.com To see archived blog posts since 2014 visit www.libertytakeseffort.com.
DISCLAIMER: The entire content of this website and newsletter are based solely upon the opinions and thoughts of the author unless otherwise noted. It is not considered advice for action by readers in any realm of human activity. Its purpose is to stimulate discussion on topics of interest to readers to further inform the public square. Use of any information on this site is at the sole choice and risk of the reader.

Small-Town Boomers: A Nostalgic Look Back at Randolph, Massachusetts

I recently published a new book, “Small-Town Boomers: A Nostalgic Look Back at Randolph, Massachusetts,” and it is now available on Amazon.  Readers may find it interesting. Although it is specifically about Baby Boomers growing up in Randolph, any nostalgic Baby Boomer may find they have much in common with the experience. Click any of the links here to purchase on Amazon. Here is a raw link as well: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DTF92SJS

SUMMARY:  Randolph, a small town about twelve miles south of Boston, Massachusetts, experienced a population explosion during the baby boom era after World War II, nearly tripling its size. To accommodate the influx of families, builders constructed hundreds of small homes that quickly filled with children. Now, those children look back nostalgically on their upbringing.

This book captures the essence of growing up in a small town during this unique period. It offers an informal history emphasizing the childhood experiences of boomers and the small-town communities that brought them a tremendous sense of independence and belonging.

The book is intended to provide future generations with a description of childhood and community that increasingly seems foreign to them. By communicating our experiences, we may offer them a different path in a world where children feel increasingly isolated and alone.

Each chapter ends with a blank, lined page that invites readers to personalize the book with their thoughts and memories, creating a family heirloom to be treasured.

I hope readers will enjoy the book.  

****

SHARING: Please consider sharing these blog posts via social media or email if you find them interesting by providing a link to either https://www.libertytakeseffort.com or https://libertytakeseffort.substack.com
DISTRIBUTION: Liberty Takes Effort shifted its distribution from social media to email delivery via Substack as a Newsletter. If you would like to receive distribution, please email me at libertytakeseffort@gmail.com To see archived blog posts since 2014 visit www.libertytakeseffort.com.
DISCLAIMER: The entire content of this website and newsletter are based solely upon the opinions and thoughts of the author unless otherwise noted. It is not considered advice for action by readers in any realm of human activity. Its purpose is to stimulate discussion on topics of interest to readers to further inform the public square. Use of any information on this site is at the sole choice and risk of the reader.

Searching for Leadership - The Trump-Harris Debate

The debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris was another disappointment for those seeking true leadership capable of inspiring and uniting the American people. It served as a reminder of how much importance we’ve placed on the presidency while simultaneously lowering the standard for candidates. Both Trump and Harris once again demonstrated mediocrity. Trump stuck to his predictable pattern of exaggeration without substance, while Harris excelled at playing her role, but lacked meaningful content.

Trump was, as expected, unable to deviate from his usual script. His inability to adapt or take advice was clear. This debate marked his second chance to "seal the deal," the first being his meandering 90-minute speech at the Republican National Convention. Those who had hoped for a change or an awakening after his near-death experience were let down.

The Basement Strategy

 In the 2020 presidential election, Joe Biden successfully defeated Donald Trump by employing what is called the "Basement Strategy." This approach was developed by the Biden campaign to keep their candidate away from unscripted public events. Their knowledge then that Biden's cognitive abilities were in decline drove the strategy. Instead of frequent unscripted public appearances, the campaign relied on a compliant media, which was largely opposed to Trump, to overlook Biden's limited visibility. This strategy proved effective, culminating in Biden's victory.

However, once Biden assumed office, the signs of his cognitive decline became increasingly apparent. His public appearances were marked by moments that raised eyebrows and could not be concealed - falling while climbing steps, a stiffened gait, calling his vice president the president, misnaming foreign leaders, and unscripted comments that often bordered on incoherent. Even in scripted events the President would often read parenthetical instructions from the teleprompter and, despite detailed instructions and prompts from his staff, he would often wander aimlessly around the stage, requiring intervention by his wife or in one highly visible instance, former President Barrack Obama.