A member of the far-left ‘Squad’ facing a tough challenge from within his own party recently attended a fundraiser co-hosted by an Islamic leader who said he was ‘happy to see’ the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas on Israeli civilians.

Rep. Jamaal Bowman, who represents New York’s 16th Congressional District, attended the May 1 fundraiser at a private residence in Fairfax, Virginia, and didn’t seem to mind the presence of Nihad Awad, a highly controversial and antisemitic figure who serves as the national executive director and co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Awad faced sharp scrutiny last year after expressing his pleasure with the Hamas attack that resulted in the deaths of nearly 1,200 Israelis, including women and babies, and claiming Israel ‘does not have a right to self-defense.’

‘The people of Gaza only decided to break the siege – the walls of the concentration camp – on Oct. 7,’ Awad said during the 16th annual Convention for Palestine on Nov. 24 near Chicago. ‘And yes, I was happy to see people breaking the siege and throwing down the shackles of their own land and walk free into their land that they were not free to walk in.’

He continued, ‘And yes, the people of Gaza have the right to self-defense, have the right to defend themselves. And yes, Israel as an occupying power does not have that right to self-defense.’

The Biden administration later scrambled to distance itself from CAIR following Awad’s comments, stating it was removing the group from its publicly listed pledge to fight antisemitism.

At the time, White House spokesperson Andrew Bates told Fox News Digital in a statement, ‘We condemn these shocking, Antisemitic statements in the strongest terms.’

‘The horrific, brutal terrorist attacks committed by Hamas on October 7th were, as President Biden said, ‘abhorrent’ and represent ‘unadulterated evil,’’ Bates said.

‘October 7th was the deadliest day for Jewish people since the Holocaust,’ he continued. ‘The atrocities of that day shock the conscience, which is why we can never forget the pain Hamas has caused for so many innocent people.’

‘There are families who are in agony mourning loved ones, and there are also families in agony as they do everything in their power to free loved ones being held hostage,’ Bates said. ‘Every leader has a responsibility to call out Antisemitism wherever it rears its ugly head.’

Ahead of the fundraiser, Awad posted on social media praising Bowman as ‘a staunch defender of Palestinian rights’ and asking people to attend the fundraiser and donate.

It’s unclear why Bowman decided to attend a fundraiser alongside Awad, and his campaign did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Bowman is facing what is expected to be a tough primary battle against George Latimer, who serves as a Westchester County executive and previously served in the New York State Assembly and state Senate.

The primary will be held on June 25. The winner will likely become the next representative of the district as elections analysts rate the race as either ‘safe’ or ‘solid’ Democrat.

Fox News’ Timothy H.J. Nerozzi contributed to this report.

The Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health released an infographic on April 24 through social media site Telegram indicating that it lacked identifying data for more than 10,000 of the 34,183 so-called martyrs who had been killed in the 200 days following Hamas’ brutal Oct. 7 attack on Israel.

Despite growing concerns over the Ministry of Health’s figures, the Biden administration continues to cite the ministry’s data with no reference to its origin. In October, President Biden claimed that he had ‘no confidence’ in Ministry of Health figures. In his March, State of the Union address, Biden shared the ministry’s data with a global audience without referencing its origin, noting that ‘more than 30,000 Palestinians have been killed, most of whom are not Hamas.’

David Adesnik, senior fellow and director of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Fox News Digital that the incompleteness of data entries for 10,152 victims in an earlier April 21 data set should be ‘a flashing red light’ for onlookers who have previously trusted ministry calculations of the death toll in Gaza.

Adesnik has called on the Biden administration to ‘ask the intelligence community to evaluate the data’s sources and accuracy’ prior to citing Ministry of Health figures in the future.

Adesnik explained that until the end of March, the Ministry of Health grouped victims of alleged ‘Israeli aggression’ into two categories. In one category were the victims whose deaths have been reported by the Gazan hospital system. This category also includes thousands of deaths registered by family members who believe their loved ones’ bodies remain buried under rubble, or are otherwise inaccessible. For victims in this category, the ministry says it can provide names, identification numbers, ages and genders of the deceased. 

‘Ask the intelligence community to evaluate the data’s sources and accuracy’ prior to citing Ministry of Health figures in the future.

The second category were victims whose deaths were reported through what the ministry referred to as ‘reliable media sources.’ Adesnik says the Ministry of Health has ‘never specified what the sources are, or how they determine if the information in these sources is credible. And of course, Gaza doesn’t have independent media,’ he added. These entries lack at least one of five categories of identifying information: an identification number, full name, gender, birthdate, or date of death. Adesnik says there is no clarification of what information is lacking that renders entries incomplete.

He noted that the proportion of deaths reported through media sources has increased from about 30% in December to nearly 80% in the first quarter of 2024. There are irregularities in the death toll reported through media sources, like the gender breakdown of victims, which he says is ‘so skewed that it is almost hard to believe.’

If one combines both categories of victims, he says, it appears that around 70% of victims are women and children, as Hamas has claimed. Utilizing only the first category of individuals, whose records the health ministry labels as ‘complete,’ about 60% of victims are women and children. 

By late March, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that 13,000 Hamas terrorists had been killed. 

<!–>

Adesnik referenced the work of economist Michael Spagat, a longtime proponent of the accuracy of the Ministry of Health’s data. Spagat recently found 3,407 records within the data set of supposedly complete records that have been duplicated, have missing or invalid identification numbers, or lack an age for the deceased. When these records are removed from the first category’s count, Spagat found that 53.3% of victims were women and children. 

In its April 21 update, the Hamas-run Ministry of Health shifted its moniker for the second category of deaths, no longer referring to them as having been collated through media sources, but rather as sources that lack complete data. ‘It’s just a relabeling,’ Adesnik said. 

Adesnik has sounded the alarm about multiple other irregularities in the the numbers. He previously reported for FDD that the ministry’s death toll vacillates on occasion. He told Fox News Digital that additional aspects of the ministry’s reporting have yet to be verified, including whether it truly differentiates between naturally-occurring deaths among Palestinians, and deaths that occur due to violence.

Adesnik also questions whether the ministry counts deaths from misfired Palestinian rockets, such as the rocket that hit Al-Ahli Arab hospital on Oct. 16, in its toll. The Times of Israel reported in November that the Israel Defense Forces estimated 12% of Palestinian rockets landed in Gaza.

Adesnik also encouraged closer scrutiny of children in Hamas’ death figures, explaining that many Hamas fighters are under the age of 18. ‘If you look at the gender breakdown of people who died under the age of 18, you can see the teenagers have a surplus of men,’ he explained. 

Biden shared the ministry’s data with a global audience without referencing its origin, noting that ‘more than 30,000 Palestinians have been killed, most of whom are not Hamas.’

–>

Gabriel Epstein, a research assistant at The Washington Institute’s Koret Project on Arab-Israel Relations, reported in January the ‘many reasons to treat Gaza Ministry of Health and [Government Media Office] fatality numbers with skepticism,’ including their underreporting of male deaths. By March 26, Epstein noted that ‘discrepancies in official Palestinian counts and their growing reliance on questionable data’ have ensured the ministry’s ‘numbers themselves have lost any claim to validity.’

In response to questions about whether the State Department is looking into the sources of Ministry of Health death data for the more than 10,000 victims for whom the ministry lacks essential identifying information, a spokesperson said the department is not able to independently assess actions in Gaza. The spokesperson noted that thousands of civilians, and a significant number of children, have been killed in Gaza. ‘Every one of those losses is a tragedy, whether it’s the number that has been released from Gaza or whether it’s some other number, every one of them is a tragedy, and we mourn the loss of every one of those civilians.’

The stakes in getting the numbers correct are high. As Epstein explained in his January report, ‘although thousands of Palestinian noncombatants, including military-age males, have undoubtedly been killed in the Hamas-initiated conflict, the world must also recognize that the group has manipulated and exploited civilian fatality claims for its strategic benefit, in an attempt to truncate Israel’s air and ground operations and stir international outrage. The international media and NGOs have repeated such claims without proper scrutiny and in turn validated and reinforced Hamas propaganda efforts.’ 

Another gap in Ministry of Health death counts is the lack of differentiation between military and civilian casualties. Terrorist casualty rates are disputed. In February, a Hamas official told Reuters that the group had lost around 6,000 of its estimated fighters. The IDF estimated they had killed double that amount, or 12,000. By late March, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that 13,000 Hamas terrorists had been killed. 

Fox News Digital reached out to the IDF and to Hamas leadership for comment about the Ministry of Health’s incomplete records, and for an updated count of the losses that Hamas has incurred on the battlefield. Neither responded.

Even utilizing Ministry of Health data, the ratio of civilian to militant deaths demonstrates significant Israeli efforts to minimize casualties, according to information that John Spencer, chair of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point’s Modern War Institute, recently shared on the social media platform X. 

Based on the ministry’s estimate that 34,000 have died in the war and the IDF’s claim it has killed 13,000 Hamas fighters, Spencer calculated a 1 to 1.5 or 1.6 ratio of combatant to civilian deaths in Gaza. He compared this to the 1 to 2.5 combatant to civilian death rate ‘when U.S.-led Iraqi Security Force killed 10,000 civilians to destroy 4,000 ISIS’ between 2016 and 2017 during the Battle of Mosul, and the 1 to 6 combatant to civilian death rate when ‘the American military killed 100,000 civilians to destroy 17,000 Japanese defenders’ at the 1945 Battle of Manila. 

Spencer also described the numerous methods that Israel has employed to protect the civilian population of Gaza, including but not limited to evacuating civilians before beginning ground invasions, providing safe routes and humanitarian zones for evacuations, notifying civilians of combat areas with flyers, direct phone calls and text messages, imposing use of force restrictions, and using legal advisers in their targeting process. 

In sum, Spencer explained that ‘all available evidence shows that Israel has followed the laws of war, legal obligations, best practices in civilian harm mitigation and still found a way to reduce civilian casualties to historically low levels.’ 

Between now and July 15, when the GOP convention kicks off in Milwaukee, presumptive Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump will pick a running mate. Oftentimes the vice presidential choice is not especially consequential; this time it is.

Trump can only serve one term. If you believe, like two-thirds of your fellow Americans, that the country is on the wrong track, you must agree that four years of Donald Trump will not suffice. 

To fix our open border, restore law and order, unleash our domestic energy industries, bring federal spending under control and so much more, will take 8 to 12 years. That is what our nation needs and, with the help of his vice president, that is what Trump must deliver.

The former president gets it. More than once, he has said that his major criteria in choosing a running mate will be that the individual can serve as president. 

This past weekend, the Republican National Committee convened important donors in Palm Beach. The gatherings showcased several potential VP candidates, including Republican senators Tim Scott of South Carolina, Marco Rubio of Florida, and J.D. Vance of Ohio. Governors Kristi Noem of South Dakota and Doug Burgum of North Dakota were invited as were congressional representatives Elise Stefanik from New York and Byron Daniels from Florida. Businessman and former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy was also at the fund-raising event.

Others apparently under consideration include former Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Arizona Senatorial candidate Kari Lake and – wait for it – former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley.

The buzz in Palm Beach was all about Tim Scott and Doug Burgum. Are they the finalists? No one knows; indeed, the vetting process, which can take weeks, has not formally begun. But the guessing-game is well underway.

I judge the candidates on these five attributes:

1. Credible presidential candidate

2. Loyalty to Donald Trump

3. Well vetted, not likely to surprise

4. Helps with an important demographic, state and/or fund-raising

5. Aligns with Trump on abortion

We can rule out Kristi Noem. She not only shot a 14-month-old puppy, she shot herself in the foot. How the South Dakota governor could not have predicted that her revelation about puppycide would cause an uproar in our dog-obsessed nation is unimaginable; after all, the most damning thing most people remember about Mitt Romney was that he once traveled with his family dog on the roof of his car. 

Former Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is out. The one-time Democrat, who endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020, is mostly celebrated for having switched sides. That’s not compelling.

Also unlikely is Vivek Ramaswamy, who is too young and unpredictable, and who behaved like an insufferable jerk in the GOP debates. 

The abortion issue sidelines some otherwise strong candidates, including Florida’s Ron DeSantis, who has been an effective governor and in a recent poll of contenders, earned the highest approval ratings from both Republicans and right-leaning independents. For many, his signing of a 6-week abortion bill in Florida disqualifies him. Trump has enough problems combatting Democrats’ right to choose campaign and eagerness to misrepresent his moderate stance on the issue without giving them extra fuel. Gov. Burgum argues abortion should be left up to the states, which is Trump’s position. Burgum, a wealthy businessman who could help fund the campaign, has little name recognition but is otherwise a solid choice.

Choosing a female running mate could bolster Trump’s standing with women, currently his weakest demographic. A recent Quinnipiac poll showing the race in a dead heat had Biden beating Trump with women 52% to 41%; narrowing that gap would be powerful. 

But, many women in contention are strong anti-abortion campaigners, which will not help win over female voters in swing states. Arizona’s Kari Lake, for instance, has complicated her credentials by flip-flopping on abortion. Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who is popular with Republicans and right-leaning Independents and who is well vetted thanks to her stint as White House spokesperson under Trump, is similarly staunchly pro-life.   

Ditto Rep. Elise Stefanik, the firebrand congresswoman from New York who came to prominence chastising university presidents for allowing antisemitism to blossom on campuses. She is not well-known and has been awarded an A+ rating by the non-profit Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America group.

The V.P. pick could also bolster Trump’s standing with minorities. Senators Tim Scott and Marco Rubio could help with Black and Hispanic voters, respectively. Both are also relatively well-known; Scott, in particular, is popular. A recent YouGov poll assessing several V.P. candidates showed 49% of Republicans and right-leaning independents approving of Scott, with only 14% disapproving.  (Rubio was not covered in that survey.) That’s why oddsmakers put Tim Scott at the top of the contender list. 

But Scott did not gain traction in the GOP primary race; he is viewed by some as having a wonderful life story but otherwise narrow credentials. Marco Rubio, on the other hand, has credibility on foreign policy and could bolster Trump’s fast-growing appeal to Hispanics. 

Mike Pompeo, Trump’s former Secretary of State, has an impressive C.V., and clearly has the ability to occupy the Oval Office. J.D. Vance is not broadly known and probably, like Byron Daniels, too new to the national scene (in that recent survey 58% said they were ‘unsure’ about the Ohio senator). 

Many centrist Republicans would like to see Nikki Haley run with Trump, thinking she could attract women to the ticket and also moderate voters who dislike both Biden and the former president. It might work, but would require repairing what became a serious rift between her and her former boss. The former U.N. Ambassador angered Trump and his supporters by staying in the race even when she had no chance of winning; her approval among Republicans and independents who lean GOP is poor. 

On the plus side, Haley’s position on abortion aligns with Trump, and she is an excellent campaigner.

In the coming weeks, expect to see Trump road-test numerous candidates. For the sake of the country, let’s hope he chooses a winner.