Anti-Christian Hate Crimes Are Surging Across Europe—And The Warning Signs Are Also Flashing In America

Anti-Christian Hate Crimes Are Surging Across Europe—And The Warning Signs Are Also Flashing In America

Decision Magazine

Anti-Christian hate crimes are surging across Europe—and the warning signs are flashing in America too.

The Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe (OIDAC Europe) released its May 2026 monthly analysis report, documenting a troubling spike in hostility. A total of “37 anti-Christian hate crimes targeting Christian places of worship, religious symbols, religious spaces, Christian institutions and Christian individuals” were recorded, marking an overall increase. 

The crimes included vandalism, desecration, physical violence, theft, incitement, vandalism paired with violence, disruption of worship, and arson-related attacks. “With 13 recorded arson-related incidents,” the report notes, “May represents the highest monthly figure recorded so far in 2026.” Though not exhaustive, the countries that bore the brunt of it included Germany, France, Italy, Ireland, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

OIDAC Europe details how “incidents affecting churches and Christian property whose anti-Christian bias could not be clearly established” were not included in the report, meaning the “statistical total” could be worse than presented. Over 27 additional thefts, 24 break-ins or attempted break-ins, 14 cases of vandalism, damage or graffiti, and nine fires are actively “under investigation or with unclear causes.”

In Greece alone, roughly 96% of “all recorded incidents” involved attacks related to religious sites in the country between 2024 and 2025, according to the May 2026 analysis.

“[A]nti-Christian hostility continues to extend beyond property damage,” OIDAC asserts. “[I]ncidents involving direct violence, intimidation, or serious danger to persons” are steadily becoming a “notable trend.”

For example, according to OIDAC Europe, “A Christian-run café in Leipzig had to close after its operators reported 26 attacks over a period of two and a half years, including repeated vandalism, graffiti attacks, damage caused by butyric acid, and other forms of harassment.” These attacks were allegedly “carried out by individuals associated with the far-left extremist scene and ultimately made the continued operation of the café financially impossible.”

The Barbara Chapel in Penzberg, Germany, was desecrated with “satanic graffiti.” A historic church bell tower was damaged in a shotgun attack in Greece, and Italy faced instances of graffiti that openly called for churches to be burned.

These aren’t abstract numbers, OIDAC Europe concludes, but vivid pictures of believers struggling to live out their faith without penalty. A café forced to shutter after relentless harassment. Worship disrupted by violence. These recorded cases reflect “a broader pattern repeatedly documented by OIDAC Europe in recent years, namely the pressure faced by Christian individuals and organisations that publicly uphold traditional Christian beliefs and values.”

And notably, this wave of hostility isn’t confined to Europe. Similar patterns are increasing sharply in the United States as well. 

According to the Family Research Council’s (FRC) own tracking of incidents against churches, the organization identified 1,384 acts of hostility toward U.S. churches between January 2018 and December 2024. Like in OIDAC Europe’s report, these attacks include vandalism, arson, bomb threats and other destructive acts that seek to intimidate faith communities.

FRC’s reports show a clear upward trend in attacks on houses of worship, with annual updates documenting accelerating incidents in recent years. Just as in Europe, these acts often target the physical spaces where Christians gather, while broader cultural pressures mount against those who hold to Biblical convictions on life, marriage and truth.

Bible passages to ponder amid rising hostility:

• Philippians 3:10
• Matthew 16:18
• John 16:33

---

If America Empowers A Regime That Openly Calls For Israel’s Destruction...

If America Empowers A Regime That Openly Calls For Israel’s Destruction, There Will Be Significant Consequences

Brandon Holthaus

President Trump recently announced an agreement with Iran that pauses the current pressure campaign and reopens the Strait of Hormuz. While some view this as a diplomatic breakthrough, I believe it is a significant strategic error that could increase the vulnerability of both Israel and the United States.

The central question remains: What concessions has Iran made? Despite months of discussion about maximum pressure and Iran’s supposed weakening, these outcomes have not materialized. Instead, the United States has relaxed its stance, extended negotiations by sixty days, and presented this as a victory. I remain unconvinced.

This agreement resembles a temporary truce, historically known as an Islamic “hudna,” which allows them to feign peace while stalling to regroup and strengthen their position for future attacks. This pattern follows what Mohammed did with the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah in AD 628 with the Quraysh tribe of Mecca. The treaty was intended to last ten years, but lasted less than two. During this period, Muhammad used the truce to regroup and strengthen his forces. He eventually broke the truce and conquered Mecca. The Iranian Regime has gained additional time, a key objective in past negotiations. The memorandum provides two more months for talks toward a broader agreement. President Trump has suggested Iran may be permitted to enrich uranium at low levels in the future. This raises serious concerns about Iran’s intentions, given its longstanding pursuit of nuclear capabilities.

Iran’s leadership, ideology, hostility toward Israel and the United States, sponsorship of terrorism, nuclear ambitions, and revolutionary vision for the Middle East remain unchanged. Given this continuity, it is unlikely that the outcome of negotiations will differ from previous efforts.

Historically, hostile regimes have used negotiations to gain time to regroup, rebuild, and strengthen alliances. The primary concern is not only Iran’s current actions, but also how it may leverage this additional time to enhance its position in the future.

More...

Iran says Israel’s continued presence in south Lebanon would nullify deal with US

Iran says Israel’s continued presence in south Lebanon would nullify deal with US

TOI

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson says that Israel’s continued presence in southern Lebanon would mean the “annulment” of the memorandum of understanding it signed with the United States, in an interview with Lebanon’s Hezbollah-aligned Al Akhbar news outlet.

He says that “the second phase of our negotiations will begin to reach a final agreement, and this final agreement will be achieved only if the memorandum of understanding is fully implemented, which, in our view, means the complete cessation of attacks and the end of the occupation.”

US and Iranian negotiators are set to meet in the Swiss resort town of Burgenstock on Friday for initial talks.

“It was not acceptable for us to abandon our brothers in Lebanon,” Baghaei says. “As for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon, as you know, we mean to end the war and put a definitive and sustainable end to it. For this reason, we cannot talk about ending the war while parts of Lebanese territory remain under the occupation of the Zionist entity. As long as the occupation continues, it can be said that the war is still in place and has not ended in essence.”

IDF publishes fresh map of south Lebanon deployment, says it won’t be withdrawing yet

Emanuel Fabian

The IDF publishes an updated map of its security zone in southern Lebanon, saying it will not be withdrawing from the territory at this stage.

Stretching east to west, the deployment line on the map runs up to 10 kilometers (6 miles) deep from the border into Lebanese territory.

“IDF soldiers are stationed in the designated area of operation in southern Lebanon and will continue to remove threats and strengthen the defense of Israel’s northern residents,” the military says in a statement.

The map shows that Israeli troops have advanced deeper into Lebanon since the “forward defense line” was first announced in April, including reaching the outskirts of Nabatieh.

The IDF’s potential withdrawal from areas of southern Lebanon is still being discussed amid direct negotiations between Israel and Lebanon. The teams are expected to convene again next week.

At this stage, the IDF says it will continue to hold onto the territory, “in accordance with operational needs,” to remove any threat to troops and to Israel’s northern border communities.

The military also says that it calls on the Lebanese army to coordinate its activity with the IDF and not approach the security zone, as operations in the area continue.

Three Saudi oil tankers sail through Hormuz, hours after US-Iran deal signed

Israel holding ‘stubborn’ talks with US on keeping troops in south Lebanon, official close to Netanyahu says

Why the US-Israel war on Iran failed

Why the US-Israel war on Iran failed

RT

The war waged by the United States and Israel against Iran deserves a place in contemporary international relations textbooks. Not because it overturns everything we know about power, but because it shows how the use of power is changing.

Classical approaches to relations between states still matter and the balance of power hasn’t disappeared. Military superiority still counts, but the consequences of using force have become less predictable than before because coercion no longer produces linear outcomes. This applies not only to direct military intervention, as in the case of Iran, but also to sanctions and other forms of pressure.

If one strips away the rhetoric, which all sides require for domestic reasons, the picture is straightforward. A coalition that was clearly stronger, consisting of the US, Israel, and the Arab Gulf states, failed to achieve the objectives it set for itself when it launched a military campaign against a clearly weaker adversary: Iran and its allied groups in the region, with likely limited support from Russia and China.

The aim was to deliver a swift, crushing blow to a regime considered weakened by external pressure and internal divisions. Donald Trump’s demand for “unconditional surrender” captured the mood perfectly as the assumption was that Tehran would buckle under the pressure.

The opposite happened and the attacking side’s superior forces were met with unexpectedly high resilience. Iran didn’t collapse after the initial decapitation strike and instead it reorganized, mobilized and, most importantly, cast aside many of the constraints that had previously limited its response

This is where one of the defining features of the new era came into view as asymmetrical counter-action. Iran couldn’t match the US and Israel in conventional strength, but it didn’t need to because it used the tools available to it in ways that offset many of the enemy’s advantages.

First, it moved to close the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, something it had long threatened but never before dared to do. Second, it struck not only American targets in the region, but also the assets of key US partners. Third, it relied on large weapons stockpiles which, although inferior to those of the US and Israel, were sufficient to inflict serious damage on countries unused to absorbing such blows. Fourth, Iran demonstrated a tolerance for damage substantially higher than that of its enemies.

The current outcome speaks for itself as none of the issues over which the US and Israel went to war has been resolved. Everything has once again been deferred to future negotiations and everyone understands that negotiations in the tradition of Persian diplomacy mean tenacity and patience.

In essence, after an intense armed conflict that threw the whole world into turmoil, the status quo that had been destroyed at the beginning of the war has simply been restored. The Strait of Hormuz is to be reopened to shipping, although even the conditions for that remain unclear as both sides interpret them differently.

It is too early to say what this will mean in the medium term, but the entire Middle Eastern framework, the construction of which began during Trump’s first term, has been shaken. That framework was based on the gradual reconciliation of Israel with its Arab neighbors, especially the wealthy Gulf states and it rested on financial interdependence, technological cooperation and the marginalization of Iran and its allied groups.

More...

Africa CDC Says This Could Be The Worst Ebola Outbreak In History

Africa CDC Says This Could Be The WORST Ebola Outbreak In History

Mac Slavo

Africa’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention has said that the current Ebola outbreak of the Bundibugyo strain could be the worst one in the Democratic Republic of Congo’s (DRC or DR Congo) history. So far, more than 830 cases of the rare strain have been confirmed, and right now, there is no proven treatment or vaccine.

Of those cases, 196 proved fatal. This outbreak is likely to be more widespread than reported cases, as conflicts and displacement make it difficult for healthcare officials to track and trace.

“If we don’t stop the outbreak very soon, it will be worse than what we had in West Africa and eastern DRC,” Africa CDC Director-General Jean Kaseya told a virtual meeting of African heads of state and donors in Burundi.

The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) agrees with Kaseya’s assessment. It referred to the outbreak that affected Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone from 2014 to 2016, which killed more than 11,000 people, and a less deadly 2018 outbreak in Congo.

According to a CNN report, Africa CDC’s Kaseya warned that the total funding needs would surge if the initial plan did not get sufficient support. “If we don’t have it in the next four weeks, we will not ask again for $500 million; we’ll be asking about $1.5 billion. If we delay that, it will be $7.5 billion,” he said.

Kaseya is making the claim that the longer this outbreak goes, the worse it’s going to get; therefore, the more money they will need to track, trace, and treat the infected. Quarantine measures will get more difficult as more people contract the disease too.

A Red Cross official said that this outbreak has not yet peaked either.  “We are afraid that this could last one year to end this disease,” Bruno Michon, operations manager for the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, told reporters by video link from eastern Congo.

If this outbreak is the worst in history, officials are correct that it has only just begun, and has far from peaked.