Johnson said the DOJ's decision is "another example" of the Biden administration's two-tiered system of justice, and that the House would move to enforce the subpoena of Garland in federal court. The contempt order comes after Biden invoked executive privilege over the tapes, but Congress has received a transcript of the interview.
House Speaker Mike Johnson
expressed disappointment Friday in the Justice Department's (DOJ)
decision not to prosecute Attorney General Merrick Garland after the
House voted to hold him in contempt for not fulfilling a subpoena, but
said he plans to move forward by taking the subpoena to federal court
and certifying the contempt reports.
The DOJ said Garland's refusal to comply
with a congressional subpoena does not "constitute a crime." The
subpoena instructed Garland to turn over an audio recording of President
Joe Biden's interview with special counsel Robert Hur, who investigated
Biden's handling of classified documents. The House voted to hold Garland in contempt on Wednesday.
"The House disagrees with the assertions in the letter from the
Department of Justice, and as Speaker, I will be certifying the contempt
reports to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia," Johnson said in a post to X.
"It is sadly predictable that the Biden Administration’s Justice
Department will not prosecute Garland for defying congressional
subpoenas even though the department aggressively prosecuted Steve
Bannon and Peter Navarro for the same thing."
Johnson said the DOJ's decision is "another example" of the Biden
administration's two-tiered system of justice, and that the House
would move to enforce the subpoena of Garland in federal court. The
contempt order comes after Biden invoked executive privilege over the
tapes, though Congress has received a transcript of the interview.
Garland blasted the House's contempt vote in a statement Wednesday, claiming that House Republicans were turning their power into a partisan weapon.
"Today’s vote disregards the constitutional separation of powers, the
Justice Department’s need to protect its investigations, and the
substantial amount of information we have provided to the Committees,"
Garland said in a statement after the vote. “I will always stand up for
this department, its employees, and its vital mission to defend our
democracy."
Misty Severi is an evening news reporter for Just the News. You can follow her on X for more coverage.
Instead of supporting Israel's right to defend itself against coordinated and sustained attacks, the Biden administration's public wavering suggests a pro-terrorist shift in US policy away from Israel. This shift represents a betrayal that leaves Israel in [a] no-win position
While Russian warships,
including a nuclear submarine, this week docked in Cuba, and with China
building a major deep-water port in Peru that could serve the Chinese
military, the US administration is pressuring only Israel to allow the
Iran-backed terrorist group Hamas to win the war it launched against
Israel on October 7.
Instead of supporting Israel's right to defend itself against
coordinated and sustained attacks, the Biden administration's public
wavering suggests a pro-terrorist shift in US policy away from Israel.
This shift represents a betrayal that leaves Israel in the no-win
position of either rejecting US proposals, or allowing Hezbollah, Hamas,
the Houthis and other Iranian-backed terrorist groups to keep trying to
advance their goal of ultimately destroying Israel.
When Iran itself, and not a terrorist proxy, launched an
unprecedented missile and drone attack against Israel from Iranian soil
on April 13, 2024, the assault was an act of war.
The result had been that Iran's proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon is now
engaged in unremittingly raining down rockets, attack drones and guided
missiles throughout Israel's north. The Biden administration might not
even have asked the Iranian regime to order its other terrorist proxy
Hezbollah to stop.
Asking Israel to do nothing against Hamas and Hezbollah after
eight months of escalating aggression is akin to asking the United
States, after the 9/11 attacks, to leave Al Qaeda untouched and allow it
to remain in power.
Meanwhile, there has evidently been no pressure put on Qatar or
Iran to lift a finger to stop the Gaza war. And Hamas official Ghazi
Hamad disclosed last week that Egypt and Qatar have exerted no pressure
on Hamas whatsoever to accept Biden's proposed ceasefire, and that media
reports about threats to expel Hamas leaders from Qatar are false.
On one hand, the Biden administration keeps warning Israel
against defending itself, while on the other, it keeps waiving
sanctions, thereby providing the Iranian regime with billions of dollars
that fund, arm, and sponsor terrorist organizations including Hamas,
Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Houthis -- all of which are
committed to eradicating Israel.
Worse, this US largesse is enabling the Iranian regime to race toward completing its nuclear weapons program.
Israel is being advised to exercise restraint and not retaliate
while facing escalating threats from the very enemies bolstered by the
people asking them to exercise restraint.
The "ring of fire" strategy -- apparently expanded to the hostile
axis of Russia, China and Iran -- is now coiling around the US, as well
as installing potential fighters and saboteurs "inside the gates."
The financial resources that Iran gains from waived sanctions,
and channels into furthering its agenda with Qatar, Hamas and Hezbollah,
simply increase their ability to conduct aggressive actions against
Israel and the US, destabilize the region -- and with its new Russian
and Communist Chinese axis -- seriously jeopardize the Free World.
The financial resources that Iran gains from waived
sanctions, and channels into furthering its agenda with Qatar, Hamas and
Hezbollah, simply increase their ability to conduct aggressive actions
against Israel and the US, destabilize the region -- and with its new
Russian and Communist Chinese axis -- seriously jeopardize the Free
World. Pictured: Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei hosts
Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, on June 21, 2023. (Image source:
khamenei.ir)
While Russian warships, including a nuclear submarine, this week docked
in Cuba, and with China building a major deep-water port in Peru that
could serve the Chinese military, the US administration is pressuring
only Israel to allow the Iran-backed terrorist group Hamas to win the
war it launched against Israel on October 7.
When an ally is attacked by terrorists, the fundamental principle of
an alliance dictates that the victim must be provided unwavering support
to defeat the terrorists and dismantle the terror infrastructure
completely, ensuring that the terrorists cannot regroup to launch
further attacks.
Without such a commitment, it, the trust between allies erodes, and
terrorists are emboldened. The situation has become particularly dire
for Israel, which has been facing brutal attacks on multiple fronts.
Despite these assaults, the Biden Administration has not only failed
consistently to support Israel after it was invaded on October 7, 2023,
accompanied by thousands of missiles, but has also pressed for policies favoring Hamas and its sponsors and enablers, Qatar and Iran.
After yet another of Iran's other proxy terrorist militias,
Hezbollah, not only joined Hamas in attacking Israel but has kept
escalating its attacks, the response from the Biden administration has
been to warn
-- not Hezbollah or Iran against warmongering – but Israel. Instead of
supporting Israel's right to defend itself against coordinated and
sustained attacks, the Biden administration's public wavering (such as here, here and here)
suggests a pro-terrorist shift in US policy away from Israel. This
shift represents a betrayal that leaves Israel in the no-win position of
either rejecting US proposals, or allowing Hezbollah, Hamas, the
Houthis and other Iranian-backed terrorist groups to keep trying to
advance their goal of ultimately destroying Israel.
When Iran itself, and not a terrorist proxy, launched an unprecedented missile and drone attack against Israel from Iranian soil on April 13, 2024, the assault was an act of war.
The response from the Biden administration was again to warn Israel not to retaliate, defend itself or fight back. The administration went even further and suggested that Israel should consider the situation a "win-win" scenario, simply because Iran's barrage of more than 300 ballistic missiles, cruise missile and attack drones
at a country smaller than New Jersey did not inflict significant
damage. By suggesting that Israel should be content that the attack did
not cause major harm, and by withholding essential military support, the
administration is minimizing the seriousness of the threat posed by
Iran's actions. The result had been that Iran's proxy Hezbollah in
Lebanon is now engaged in unremittingly raining down rockets, attack
drones and guided missiles throughout Israel's north. The Biden
administration might not even have asked the Iranian regime to order its
other terrorist proxy Hezbollah to stop.
Asking Israel to do nothing against Hamas and Hezbollah after eight
months of escalating aggression is akin to asking the United States,
after the 9/11 attacks, to leave Al Qaeda untouched and allow it to
remain in power. Would the U.S. have listened to such a recommendation?
Meanwhile, there has evidently been no pressure put on Qatar or Iran
to lift a finger to stop the Gaza war. And Hamas official Ghazi Hamad disclosed
last week that Egypt and Qatar have exerted no pressure on Hamas
whatsoever to accept Biden's proposed ceasefire, and that media reports
about threats to expel Hamas leaders from Qatar are false.
On one hand, the Biden administration keeps warning Israel against defending itself, while on the other, it keeps waiving
sanctions, thereby providing the Iranian regime with billions of
dollars that fund, arm, and sponsor terrorist organizations including
Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Houthis -- all of
which are committed to eradicating Israel.
Worse, this US largesse is enabling the Iranian regime to race toward completing its nuclear weapons program.
The Biden administration has also been massively strengthening the
capacity of Iran and its proxies to carry out military operations
against Israel, block shipping in the Red Sea and attack even US troops at least 170 times in the region. Three US servicemembers were killed, and at least 183 others wounded, including 131 with serious brain injuries.
Israel is being advised to exercise restraint and not retaliate while
facing escalating threats from the very enemies bolstered by the people
asking them to exercise restraint.
This policy muddle raises serious questions about the reliability of
the United States as a steadfast ally. By not taking decisive action to
support Israel, the administration is also sending a warning of
inconsistency and weakness to all prospective allies, and encouraging
them to rely on America's adversaries instead.
The consequences of this approach are unfortunately far-reaching.
They affect not only the immediate security of Israel but also the
credibility of the United States on the global stage, the broader
stability of the region, and the very preservation of the US, which is
currently being encircled by enemies.
The "ring of fire"
strategy -- apparently expanded to the hostile axis of Russia, China
and Iran -- is now coiling around the US, as well as installing
potential fighters and saboteurs "inside the gates."
Allies, such as Israel and Ukraine, depend on military assurance in times of crisis -- not airy promises before and after them -- to know they will not be left to stand alone.
The financial resources that Iran gains from waived sanctions, and
channels into furthering its agenda with Qatar, Hamas and Hezbollah,
simply increase their ability to conduct aggressive actions against
Israel and the US, destabilize the region -- and with its new Russian
and Communist Chinese axis -- seriously jeopardize the Free World.
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a business strategist and
advisor, Harvard-educated scholar, political scientist, board member of
Harvard International Review, and president of the International
American Council on the Middle East. He has authored several books on Islam and US Foreign Policy. He can be reached at Dr.Rafizadeh@Post.Harvard.Edu
Servers were taken down in the US, Germany, the Netherlands and Iceland, while Spanish police arrested nine "radicalized individuals," the organizations that coordinated the actions said.
Police across Europe and the United States have in
the past week taken down a large number of servers that supported media
outlets linked to Islamic State, European police and justice
organizations Europol and Eurojust said on Friday.
Servers
were taken down in the US, Germany, the Netherlands and Iceland, while
Spanish police arrested nine "radicalized individuals," the
organizations that coordinated the actions said.
The servers supported websites, radio stations, a news agency and social media content with a global reach, they added.
"They
communicated directives and slogans of Islamic State in over thirty
languages, including Spanish, Arabic, English, French, German, Danish,
Turkish, Russian, Indonesian and Pashto. Several terabytes of
information were uncovered," Europol and Eurojust said.
[T]he Biden administration has communicated to the Palestinians that the October 7 atrocities have heightened their likelihood of creating a terror state ruled by the Iranian regime and its Palestinian proxies, which would be used as a launchpad to murder more Jews and destroy Israel.
Support for Hamas also
coincides with the Biden administration's and some European nations'
ongoing promotion of creating a Palestinian state right next to Israel.
This move would not only open the door for more atrocities against
Israelis, but would also put Israel in grave danger because the
Palestinian state, even under the supposedly watchful eye of a
chaperone, would essentially be ruled by the same murderers and rapists
who took part in the October 7 carnage.
These European nations — Ireland, Norway, and Spain — have sent a
message to the Palestinians that the only way they can get
international recognition for their state is by murdering Jews.
In a similar vein, the Biden administration has communicated to
the Palestinians that the October 7 atrocities have heightened their
likelihood of creating a terror state ruled by the Iranian regime and
its Palestinian proxies, which would be used as a launchpad to murder
more Jews and destroy Israel. This is evident in the administration's
continued support for a "two-state solution."
Most Palestinians know what the Biden administration does not
want to know: that the PA leadership cannot be trusted to implement any
reforms or combat financial and administrative corruption.
In addition, 54% of Palestinians polled support an "armed
struggle" against Israel, an 8-point rise from the previous poll three
months ago.
The results of the poll also confirm what a Palestinian state
would look like: it will be a terror state funded and armed by Qatar and
Iran.
This tenacity is exactly why there is no substitute to destroying Hamas.
[Hamas official Ghazi] Hamad also said that Egypt and Qatar have
exerted no pressure on Hamas whatsoever to accept Biden's proposed
ceasefire, and that media reports about threats to expel Hamas leaders
from Qatar are false.
Or is it possible that this is why they want Hamas to win?
To see the Jews finally get their comeuppance for having had the gall
not to accept their role as crushed victims after World War II, but
instead to work hard and transform a land of malaria-infested swamps,
sand dunes and deserts into a successful modern state?
"Israel should swiftly and decisively eliminate Muslim
Brotherhood terrorist forces in Gaza." — Amjad Taha, political
strategist and analyst from the United Arab Emirates, X, June 12, 2024.
More than eight months after Hamas's October 7 attack on
Israel, most Palestinians continue to voice support for the atrocities
committed by the Iran-backed terrorist group, including the murder,
rape, beheading and burning of hundreds of Israelis. Support for Hamas
also coincides with the Biden administration's and some European
nations' ongoing promotion of creating a Palestinian state right next to
Israel. Pictured: Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorists share a
moment of friendship for the crowds in the Gaza Strip city of Rafah, on
November 28, 2023. (Photo by AFP via Getty Images)
More than eight months after Hamas's October 7 attack on Israel, most Palestinians continue to voice support
for the atrocities committed by the Iran-backed terrorist group,
including the murder, rape, beheading and burning of hundreds of
Israelis.
This ongoing support for Hamas comes amid US-led efforts to end the
current war in the Gaza Strip, a move that would effectively keep Hamas
in power to prepare for its next massacre of Israelis.
Support for Hamas also coincides with the Biden administration's and
some European nations' ongoing promotion of creating a Palestinian state
right next to Israel. This move would not only open the door for more
atrocities against Israelis, but would also put Israel in grave danger
because the Palestinian state, even under the supposedly watchful eye of
a chaperone, would essentially be ruled by the same murderers and
rapists who took part in the October 7 carnage.
Three public opinion polls
conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research
(PSR) after the October 7 Hamas-led attack have shown that an
overwhelming majority of Palestinians support the crimes committed on
that day, and which claimed the lives of 1,200 Israelis.
The first poll, conducted in December 2023, found that Palestinian
support for the massacre stood at 72%. The second poll, conducted in
March 2024, showed that 71% of Palestinians support the massacre. The
third poll, published on June 12, found that two-thirds of the
Palestinians believe the atrocities were "correct." According to the
latest PSR poll, only 17% of Palestinians believe that the October 7
massacre was "incorrect."
One of the reasons why most Palestinians continue to support the October 7 massacre is because they believe
that the murder, rape and beheading of Israelis has "revived
international attention to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that it
could lead to increased recognition of Palestinian statehood," PSR noted in its analysis of the June 12 poll.
This indicates that the majority of Palestinians see the recent
recognition of a Palestinian state by some European countries, together
with the Biden administration's demand for "a concrete, time-bound and irreversible path to a Palestinian state," as a reward for the horrors of October 7.
These European nations — Ireland, Norway, and Spain — have sent a
message to the Palestinians that the only way they can get international
recognition for their state is by murdering Jews.
In a similar vein, the Biden administration has communicated to the
Palestinians that the October 7 atrocities have heightened their
likelihood of creating a terror state ruled by the Iranian regime and
its Palestinian proxies, which would be used as a launchpad to murder
more Jews and destroy Israel. This is evident in the administration's
continued support for a "two-state solution."
The poll showed that most Palestinians (61%) would prefer to see
Hamas control the Gaza Strip after the war, as opposed to only 16% who
favored a "new Palestinian Authority with an elected president,
parliament and government." Only 6% chose the current Palestinian
Authority (PA) without Mahmoud Abbas, and another 6% chose the return of
the PA to the Gaza Strip but under his control.
Unsurprisingly, the poll also showed that if a Palestinian
presidential election were held today, most Palestinians would vote for a
candidate who has Jewish blood on his hands: arch-terrorist Marwan
Barghouti, who is serving five life terms in prison for his role in the
murder of five Israelis, would win 42% of the vote, followed by Hamas
leader Ismail Haniyeh (27%) and Mahmoud Abbas (5%). Nearly 90% want
Abbas to resign, as the level of dissatisfaction with his performance
stands at 86%.
When asked which political party they support, the largest percentage
selected Hamas (40%) followed by Abbas's ruling Fatah faction (20%),
while 8% choose other or third-party groups, and 33% said none of them
or did not know. The previous PSR poll, conducted three months ago,
showed that 34% of Palestinians supported Hamas and 17% selected Fatah.
This means that support for Hamas during the past three months has
witnessed a 6-point rise.
In another sign of Hamas's rising popularity among the Palestinians,
32% said they would vote for Hamas in a new parliamentary election,
while Fatah would get only 17%. The percentage of Palestinians who
believe that Hamas is the most deserving of representing and leading the
Palestinians has also risen from 49% three months ago to 51% today.
In a blow to the Biden administration's effort to "revitalize" the
PA, an overwhelming majority (72%) of Palestinians believe that the new
government appointed by Mahmoud Abbas and headed by Mohammad Mustafa
will not succeed in carrying out reforms. Another 77% of Palestinians
believe that the new government will not succeed in combating
corruption.
Most Palestinians know what the Biden administration does not want to
know: that the PA leadership cannot be trusted to implement any reforms
or combat financial and administrative corruption.
In yet another blow to the Biden administration, the latest poll
found that 65% of Palestinians oppose the idea of a "two-state
solution."
In addition, 54% of Palestinians polled support an "armed struggle"
against Israel, an 8-point rise from the previous poll three months ago.
The results of the PSR poll again reaffirm that a majority of
Palestinians continue to support a terrorist group whose goal is to
destroy Israel and replace it with an Islamist state. They also show
that the Palestinians' favorite leaders are murderers, rapists, and
kidnappers of Jewish babies.
The results of the poll also confirm what a Palestinian state would
look like: it will be a terror state funded and armed by Qatar and Iran.
Hamas has already pledged to carry out more October 7-style atrocities against Israelis. Hamas Official Ghazi Hamad said
that he would repeat the October 7 attack time and again until Israel
is annihilated, and that everything Hamas did was justified. This
tenacity is exactly why there is no substitute to destroying Hamas.
Hamad also said
that Egypt and Qatar have exerted no pressure on Hamas whatsoever to
accept Biden's proposed ceasefire, and that media reports about threats
to expel Hamas leaders from Qatar are false.
The PSR poll results show that most Palestinians have become so
radicalized that they look up to murderers and rapists as heroes and
role models. It is an outcome should be noted by the Biden
administration and those Europeans who are desperate to see a
Palestinian state and are pushing for a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip.
Or is it possible that this is why they want Hamas to win? To
see the Jews finally get their comeuppance for having had the gall not
to accept their role as crushed victims after World War II, but instead
to work hard and transform a land of malaria-infested swamps, sand dunes
and deserts into a successful modern state?
Amjad Taha, a political strategist and analyst from the United Arab Emirates, commented:
"If a ceasefire means Hamas terrorists, rapists, and
kidnappers of babies remain in Gaza, then no one in Israel, Gaza, or the
Middle East wants that. Keeping Nazis in power and giving them a moment
to breathe is unacceptable. Israel should swiftly and decisively
eliminate Muslim Brotherhood terrorist forces in Gaza."
Bassam Tawil is a Muslim Arab based in the Middle East. The work
of Bassam Tawil is made possible through the generous donation of a
couple of donors who wished to remain anonymous. Gatestone is most
grateful.
Federal judge in Louisiana calls President Biden's mandatory protections for 'gender identity' a 'threat to democracy'
A federal judge has blocked President Biden's expansion of Title IX in four states, calling the mandatory gender identity protections an "abuse of power."
U.S.
District Judge Terry Doughty granted a preliminary injunction on
Thursday, and referred to the Biden administration's unilateral Title IX
changes as a "threat to democracy."
"This case demonstrates the
abuse of power by executive federal agencies in the rulemaking process,"
Doughty said in his ruling. "The separation of powers and system of
checks and balances exist in this country for a reason."
Doughty
ruled that the changes were inadmissible because the term "gender
discrimination" as used in the establishment of Title IX "only included
discrimination against biological males and females at the time of
enactment."
President Biden speaks in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on May 31.(Michael Reynolds/EPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Doughty
ruled that the changes were inadmissible because the term "gender
discrimination" as used in the establishment of Title IX "only included
discrimination against biological males and females at the time of
enactment."
The ruling blocks implementation of the changes in Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho.
Title
IX is a longstanding civil rights law prohibiting sex-based
discrimination in schools and other education centers that receive
federal funding.
The latest update, from April, expands the definition of
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity — a
move that critics say would undermine hard-won protections for women and girls.
A
school would not be able to separate or treat people differently based
on sex, except in limited circumstances, under the provisions.
Critics say that the change will allow locker rooms and bathrooms to be based on gender identity.
LGBTQ+
students who face discrimination would be entitled to a response from
their school under Title IX, and those failed by their schools can seek
recourse from the federal government.
Advocates have hailed the change as necessary to protect transgender students. The rule is set to take effect Aug. 1.
In recent years, the political landscape of Europe has shifted significantly towards right-wing parties, and the recent European Parliament elections solidified this trend.
A detailed digital painting of Geert Wilders, a
60-year-old Dutch politician with distinctive silver hair, shown from
the side and very close up. (photo credit: Illustration. DALL·E)
“Keep strong, my Israeli friends, in fighting Hamas.
The UN, USA, and Europe don’t understand you are fighting an
existential war. Against the dark forces of hate and destruction called
Hamas. I’ll always support you.” This quote, which would probably
resonate positively amongst most Israelis and Jews, was said by a
far-right political leader who may become the Netherlands's next Prime
Minister.
Meet
60-year-old Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician who founded and has led
the far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) since 2006, holding a
parliamentary seat since 1998. Known for his right-wing populism,
anti-immigration stance, opposition to Islam, and Euroscepticism,
Wilders has been a controversial figure, particularly after withdrawing
his party's support from the Rutte cabinet in 2012 over budget
disagreements. Raised Roman Catholic, his political views were
significantly shaped by his travels to Israel and the Arab world, and he
has been under constant armed protection since 2004 due to his
outspoken views.
According to reports, Wilders met with far-right leaders in Brussels earlier this week to discuss European Parliament
cooperation. At the same time, the formation of the new Dutch cabinet,
including members from several political parties, is estimated to be
able to establish a new and historic right-wing coalition.
In
recent years, the political landscape of Europe has shifted
significantly towards right-wing parties. This trend was solidified by
the recent European Parliament elections, where right-wing factions made
substantial gains across the continent. Once considered a fringe
politician, Wilders has moved into the mainstream of Dutch politics,
reflecting a broader trend that Israel can no longer afford to ignore.
Who is Geert Wilders, and other European figures?
Wilders
has long been a controversial figure in European politics. Known for
his staunch anti-Islamic rhetoric and nationalist views, Wilders and his
PVV party have been viewed with suspicion and concern by many,
including within Israel. However, the political reality in the
Netherlands has changed. Wilders’ PVV made significant gains in the
recent elections, forming a coalition government with other right-wing
parties. This shift emphasizes the need for Israel to reassess its
stance toward engaging with right-wing European leaders.
Dutch far-right leader Geert Wilders speaks to media in The Hague,
Netherlands after polls closed in an EU election on June 6, 2024.
(credit: Lewis Macdonald / Reuters)
As an
example, speaking after the elections, Wilders emphasized his support
for Israel, stating, "Israel is a beacon of democracy in the Middle
East. We must support Israel in its fight against terrorism and stand
firmly by its side."
In
2010, during a speech he delivered in Tel Aviv, Wilders said, “If the
Jews are denied the right to live in freedom and peace, soon we will all
be denied this right. If the light of Israel is extinguished, we will
all face darkness. If Israel falls, the West falls.”
On
October 7, Wilders said, “When Israel is under attack, we are all under
attack. Islamic terrorists hate Jews, Christians, and all non-muslims.
Jerusalem, Paris, Rome, and Amsterdam are all targets. It’s a war
between freedom and barbarity. So let us all vigorously support our
Israeli friends!”
“If
Jerusalem falls into the hands of the Muslims, Athens and Rome will be
next. Thus, Jerusalem is the main front protecting the West. It is not a
conflict over territory but rather an ideological battle, between the
mentality of the liberated West and the ideology of Islamic barbarism.”
Israel's
historical reluctance to engage with right-wing and far-right parties
in Europe is understandable. Many of these parties have roots in or
associations with xenophobic and antisemitic movements. For instance,
the National Rally in France, led by Marine Le Pen, has a history deeply
intertwined with her father Jean-Marie Le Pen’s antisemitic remarks.
Similarly, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) has been criticized for its
members’ statements that downplay the Holocaust and its anti-immigrant
stance.
Despite
their problematic histories, many of these right-wing parties have
expressed strong support for Israel in recent years. This support has
become particularly evident since the Hamas attacks on October 7. For
example, Alice Weidel of the AfD has called for cutting aid to
Palestinians and redirecting support to Israel, emphasizing the need to
back Israel's right to defend itself.
For
example, the Sweden Democrats, led by Jimmie Åkesson, have expressed
strong support for Israel, especially in light of the recent conflicts.
On October 15, 2023, Åkesson emphasized that "Sweden must stand with
Israel against terrorism and international bias.”
After the October 7 attacks,
Le Pen attended a significant march against antisemitism in Paris on
October 17, stating, "France and Israel share common threats. Our
partnership should reflect our shared values and mutual interests." In
addition, Herbert Kickl, leader of the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ),
expressed unequivocal support for Israel’s right to self-defense
post-October 7. On October 25, Kickl said, "Austria must advocate for
Israel within the EU, ensuring that biased resolutions against Israel
are opposed and supporting Israel's security measures.”
The
recent European Parliament elections further illustrate the
strengthening of European right-wing parties. Parties like Italy's
Brothers of Italy, France's National Rally, and Hungary’s Fidesz have
all made significant gains, reflecting a broader shift towards
conservative and nationalist policies. This political shift is reshaping
national politics and influencing EU policies on immigration, security,
and foreign relations.
Given
these developments, Israel must adopt a more nuanced approach to its
relations with European right-wing parties. This does not mean ignoring
their problematic pasts or endorsing all their policies. Instead, it
involves a strategic engagement focusing on shared interests,
particularly in security, counter-terrorism, and economic cooperation.
That is precisely what diplomacy is all about.
Engaging
with these parties can help Israel ensure continued support within the
EU on critical issues. For instance, by fostering relationships with
right-wing leaders like Wilders, Israel can secure backing for its
security policies and counter-terrorism efforts within European
institutions. Similarly, aligning with parties that support Israel's
stance against antisemitism can strengthen Israel’s diplomatic position
in Europe.
While
engaging with right-wing parties, Israel must also remain vigilant
about their historical and ideological baggage. This requires a careful
balance, acknowledging past grievances while leveraging current
political opportunities. Diplomatic efforts should focus on building
alliances that benefit Israel's national interests while holding these
parties accountable for any actions or rhetoric that contradict Israel's
values.
The
implications of this political shift are significant for Israel. The
rise of right-wing parties in Europe means that Israel must navigate a
complex and evolving political landscape. Engaging with these parties
can provide Israel with crucial support on critical issues within the
European Union.
Furthermore,
this engagement can help Israel counteract antisemitic rhetoric and
policies within Europe. By working with right-wing parties that support
Israel, Israel can promote a more balanced and supportive environment
for Jewish communities across Europe. This is particularly important in
light of the recent rise in antisemitic incidents and the need for solid
advocacy against such threats.
Don’t
think I am ignoring the problematic pasts and even, at times, present
problematic attitudes of far-right European politicians. For example,
the German AfD has faced criticism for its members' revisionist comments
about the Nazi era. Björn Höcke, a prominent AfD politician, once
referred to Berlin’s Holocaust Memorial as a "monument of shame" and
called for a "180-degree reversal" in the way Germany approaches its
Nazi past.
In
addition, Wilders believes the LGBT community in Europe is threatened
by mass immigration from Muslim countries, asserting that Islam opposes
freedoms such as expressing affection, marrying, and having children. He
claims that, like Christians, Jews, and women, gay people are among the
first to suffer from Islamization. He went on to say that he is
“against Islam,” something that many would see as extreme and provoking.
He also criticized the promotion of "woke indoctrination" among young
children. He described it as a "woke dictatorship," advocating that
transsexuals should only be allowed to change gender with the approval
of a doctor or psychiatrist. His party's manifesto speaks against
"gender insanity" being taught to schoolchildren, reflecting his broader
views on Islam and immigration. Though these views don’t necessarily
see eye-to-eye with Western culture, supporting Israel should be a main
priority for Western countries. Still, unfortunately, many have turned
their backs on Israel.
In
a situation like this, how can we turn our backs on those political
leaders who have been supporting us since October 7, many years before?
Israel
is becoming isolated from many Western countries, liberal democracies
that should be the first to support us against radical Islam. But they
aren’t. Therefore, we cannot ignore our semi-new allies.
A notable example of such capabilities was Israel’s recent hostage rescue operation, the official said.
An IDF Black Hawk helicopter is seen taking off from the Palmachin Airbase in central Israel on April 2023(photo credit: MARC ISRAEL SELLEM/THE JERUSALEM POST)
The US has provided Israel with intelligence capabilities never before seen prior to October 7, a senior official told The Washington Post on Friday.
A notable example of such capabilities was Israel’s recent hostage rescue operation, the official said.
According to the Post, citing current and former US and Israeli intelligence sources since the October 7 massacre, the US has increased intelligence gathering on Hamas.
As
such, the US is reportedly sharing an extraordinary amount of drone
footage, satellite imagery, communications intercepts, and data analysis
using advanced software, some powered by artificial intelligence.
Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar attends a rally in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip January 7, 2016 (credit: REUTERS)
The unique intelligence capabilities provided by the US
The
report cited Israeli officials who said Israel is grateful for the
American aid, which in some cases provided unique capabilities that it
lacked before Hamas’s attack.
However,
according to the US daily, the Biden administration prohibited Israel
from using any intelligence provided by the US to target "regular" Hamas
terrorists in military operations and that the intelligence was only
intended to locate hostages as well as the terrorist organization's
senior leadership - including Yahya Sinwar, who planned the events of October 7, and Mohammad Deif, chief of Hamas’s military wing.
A senior official in the US security establishment told the Post, “If
we managed to unilaterally get information that we could act on, and we
thought we could actually get US people out alive, we could act, but
there was genuinely very little information specifically about US
hostages.”
"The powerful elimination worries Hezbollah members. They now understand that the IDF knows much more about them than they know about us," says Professor Amatzia Baram.
Hassan Nasrallah(photo credit: AZIZ TAHER/REUTERS)
Approximately 250 rockets were launched
on Wednesday towards northern Israel, disrupting the holiday calm with
successive alerts. Rockets that exploded in open areas caused fires. In
the city of Tiberias, a siren was activated for the first time since
October.
These launches come after the assassination of senior Hezbollah official Sami Taleb Abdullah, whose rank was equivalent to a brigadier general in the IDF.
For
the past 20 years, Abdullah had led rocket fire toward Kiryat Shmona,
the Galilee panhandle, and the Golan Heights. He is the highest-ranking
Hezbollah commander to have been killed so far in the war.
Abdullah was also active during the Second Lebanon War, serving as a brigade commander and developing rockets in the region.
Yesterday,
following attacks on Kfar Blum and after recent intelligence gathering
on him, the IDF precisely assassinated Taleb using a fighter jet. The
operation was led by the Northern Command chief in collaboration with
the Intelligence Directorate and the Air Force.
Supporters wave flags as they wait for Lebanon's Hezbollah leader
Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah to speak, April 8, 2024. (credit:
REUTERS/MOHAMED AZAKIR)
"The powerful
elimination worries Hezbollah members. They now understand that the IDF
knows much more about them than we do. Additionally, the operation
indicates that Hezbollah's field security is not airtight and that the
organization's intelligence system has been penetrated to such an extent
that we were able to eliminate such an important sector commander. The
IDF managed to infiltrate their networks and systems and identify the
right people for elimination," says Professor Amatzia Baram, suggesting
that this also impacts the leader of the terrorist organization.
Hezbollah leadership worried
He further added, "[Hezbollah Secretary-general Hassan] Nasrallah
realizes that the IDF has the ability to kill him whenever it wants,
and I believe this worries him quite a bit. Contrary to popular belief,
Nasrallah is not a suicidal Shiite yearning for death (martyrdom). He
understands that he would be next in line to die if a full-scale war
breaks out. This poses a significant danger for him. Additionally, the
elimination is a significant success in the psychological warfare
against the terrorist organization, as it leads to great concern among
the commanders, who know they could be next."
The professor also referred to the possible responses from the terrorist organization following the significant assassination.
"The
last time we eliminated senior Hezbollah commanders, the terrorist
organization increased the amount of fire as a 'punishment' and fired
more rockets and missiles at Israel,” he said. “However, they did not
cross the unspoken red lines set in the limited war."
"Now,
Hezbollah might increase the scope of fire, but in my opinion, they
will not significantly extend the range. The important point is the type
of targets they attempt to hit. So far, the terrorist organization has
not tried to hit a large civilian target, but rather only a few military
targets, which is the critical line that separates provoking Israel
from starting a full-scale war. In my opinion, Hezbollah is ready for a
large-scale war but does not want it and, therefore, will not try to
attack civilian targets," Baram added.
"From
their perspective, starting a war would be a big mistake, as then the
US would have legitimacy to join the fight. They still remember Biden's
statement that if Hezbollah initiates a full-scale war against Israel,
the US would join the war against them, which the terrorist organization
and the Iranians fear. On the other hand, if Israel started the war,
the Americans would not be obligated to join the fighting. There are
constant talks between Tehran and Beirut, with the Iranians urging
Nasrallah to escalate only in a limited manner, targeting military
objectives only and not civilians, and not to focus fire on cities with
civilian populations," the professor explained.
"Yesterday,
Hezbollah directed a drone towards Haifa. In a different scenario,
where the terrorist organization aimed 100 warheads at the city, the
effect would be different, and Israel would have the legitimacy to start
a full-scale war," Baram continued. "Israel might want Hezbollah to
cross the red line, but the terrorist organization will not do so."
"The
current limited escalation does not justify Israel starting a
full-scale war, and the crucial question is if Hezbollah might take an
action that would leave the Americans no choice but to join the war
against them, according to Biden's commitment,” Baram stated. “Even
after the powerful elimination, Hezbollah has not changed its view that
the war of attrition in the North should continue along the same
unspoken red lines.”
Cochrane's rationale doesn't explain timing: Formal debate between authors, critics ended in December. Pro-mask activists who touted scarlet letter against study, trashed its lead author remain quiet. "The damage has been done," scientist says.
The collaborative simply cited the "scientific debate" happening in the comment section of the paper,
with back-and-forth between commenters and corresponding author John
Conly of the University of Calgary medical school on behalf of the
authors. The last response, by Conly, is dated Dec. 21, 2023.
Soares-Weiser posted her unilateral statement hours after New York Times columnist and Princeton sociologist Zeynep Tufekci quoted her in the column "Here’s Why the Science Is Clear That Masks Work."
The editor-in-chief criticized the study's initiator and lead,
University of Oxford epidemiologist Tom Jefferson, for characterizing
the findings in an interview as "no evidence" that masks "make any difference," which Soares-Weiser called "not accurate." YouTube continues to promote Soares-Weiser's view as of Friday.
Tufekci told Just the News in
the wake of the controversy she was not bullying or trying to discredit
the authors by asking "questions about other people's work[, which] is
normal." She does not appear to have addressed the update on her nearly 500,000-follower X account.
"Comments on intervention adherence, combining data from studies
conducted against the backdrop of different circulating viruses, and
summary versions of the review (including the plain language summary and
abstract) have been addressed directly by the authors in their
responses," the editors said June 6.
"Following engagement with the authors," the editors decided changing
the abstract and summary intended for lay readers — which said masks
"probably make little to no difference" – "would not impact the
scientific integrity of the content."
Interesting. About a year ago, the influential Cochrane review published a paper which was a meta analysis of mask research which concluded that masks made little difference to respiratory virus transmission. Something which could be observed from the data by comparing US states… pic.twitter.com/yVRLkTnVTR
Cochrane's shrug after "throw[ing the authors] under the bus," as Jefferson put it at the time, stood out to defenders of the research and its authors.
The inaction is "devastating" for Soares-Weiser, University of California San Francisco epidemiologist Vinay Prasad, whose narrower review of community masking research in the law-medicine journal Health Matrix echoed Jefferson's, wrote in his newsletter Tuesday.
Prasad's research team "looked at all Cochrane reviews on topics with
negative overall conclusions and wide confidence intervals" – the
editor-in-chief's stated basis for changing the authors' interpretation –
and found "they were always interpreted as negative except for this one
case" in which Soares-Weiser changed it.
One author complained to Soares-Weiser that Tufekci had not been
"referred to the usual Cochrane process" for journalists, in which they
"agree to comply with the Cochrane policy and submit and provide full
[conflict of interest] disclosures" that are paired with journalists'
comments on papers.
Tufekci's column paraphrased Michigan State University emergency
medicine department Chairman Michael Brown, who serves on Cochrane's
editorial board, as saying the review "couldn’t arrive at a firm
conclusion because there weren’t enough high-quality randomized trials
with high rates of mask adherence." (The January 2023 update reviewed 78
randomized trials.)
Brown also told her he was "very confident" that mask mandates and
other early-pandemic interventions prevented "much higher" deaths in
"places like New York City."
But Brown apologized to an author "for how this transpired" because
"I stood by the conclusions of the review" and Brown would be "throwing
myself under the bus as the sign-off editor" if he contradicted their
conclusions, according to Thacker.
"Very naive to think you" and Soares-Weiser would talk to this
"controversial writer" without first informing the authors and "trust
them" not to "immediately publish what you said," the author responded,
Thacker said.
Brown told Just the News that he thought Tufekci "captured
the conclusions of the systematic review" in her paraphrase that it
couldn't reach a "firm conclusion" because of too few "high-quality
randomized trials with high rates of mask adherence."
But he said the Times did not make "explicit" his other
comments, that he was not speaking for Michigan State or Cochrane, and
that his apology "for how this transpired" was based on Tufekci
apparently not contacting the authors for their thoughts, as he had
suggested.
Jefferson and his collaborator Carl Heneghan, director of Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, republished Thacker's essay in their own newsletter. Heneghan's response
to the "U-turn" crowed that "Cochrane leaders have recanted" but "the
damage has been done," including through Walensky's false testimony and
"zero coviders" who used it to "distort reality."
Thacker also created dossiers of medical academics and science
journalists who wrote "disparaging stories and social media postings
spurred by" Soares-Weiser's statement, documenting their allegedly weak,
retracted or fraudulent mask research and false claims.
Tufekci provided Just the News a lengthy statement in response to Cochrane's decision and Thacker's allegations about her.
"Despite Paul Thacker's inexplicable insistence in making false
claims about my role in clarifying the findings from the Cochrane review
... nothing has changed regardless of whether or not Cochrane review
authors update their summary to prevent widespread misunderstandings of
what their review concluded," she wrote in an email, provided in full in
the linked PDF.
"I merely helped clarified this basic misunderstanding after seeing
it propagated widely, and multiple co-authors of that review as well as
the editor-in-chief of Cochrane agreed with my attempts to correct this
misinterpretation, and I quoted two of them in my article," Tufekci
said.
"My effort to help correct the misrepresentation ... remains valid
and correct, as attested by multiple co-authors of the review, since my
clarification was based on the actual review and not whether or not the
summary is eventually updated to make it harder to misinterpret it," she
said. I've nothing to do with that process which doesn't change the
fact that my own clarifications remain correct, valid and supported by
multiple co-authors of that very review.
She invited Thacker to point her to other studies or "disagree with
various findings ... without making false claims about either my own
role in clarifying the findings of the Cochrane review or the actual
findings of the review itself."
The Lebanese organization's structure, Iranian funding and recruitment capabilities ensure a continuous flow of personnel to replace losses.
Hezbollah terrorists at a funeral for a slain
comrade in Jwaya, Lebanon, April 17, 2024, Photo by mohammad
kassir/Shutterstock.
As the ongoing waves of Lebanese
projectile and drone attacks on northern Israel demonstrate, targeted
strikes, such as the elimination of high-ranking operatives like Sami Taleb Abdullah,
aka Abu Taleb, on June 11, serve as tactical achievements but fall
short of strategically degrading the severe threat posed by the
Hezbollah terror army and its massive arsenal.
While targeted strikes can disrupt command
and control temporarily, they do not degrade the underlying military
capabilities of the Iranian-backed Hezbollah.
Hezbollah’s
response to Abu Taleb’s assassination—firing over 300 rockets, and
UAVs, at northern Israel within 48 hours, including targeting the Plasan
Sasa defense company that manufactures armored vehicle parts,
underscores its capacity to mobilize and implement large-scale, precise
attacks rapidly, and how this ability is not dependent on any single
commander.
A troubling pace
Meanwhile, Hezbollah has been making
increasingly effective use of Almas guided anti-tank missiles, which are
based on Israeli-made Spike missiles that were captured in the 2006
Second Lebanon War and reverse engineered by the Iranians, to target
military bases in the north. Hezbollah has also used precise weapons to
try and knock out Iron Dome air defense batteries. It is using the
current conflict to adapt and learn at a troubling pace.
Hezbollah’s widespread attack on the north
on Wednesday demonstrates that the core threat lies not in any
individual commanders but in the substantial firepower array that is
entrenched deeply throughout 200 southern Lebanese Shi’ite villages, as
well as in Beirut and in the Beka’a Valley.
Tuesday night’s Israeli Air Force targeted
strike in the southern Lebanese village of Jwaya killed the most senior
Hezbollah commander since the war began, and delivered a stinging blow
to the Shi’ite Lebanese terror army, due to the intelligence
infiltration of its activities. Yet this. unfortunately, will not be a
game changer in terms of the threat posed to Israel.
Abdullah, who was commander of Hezbollah’s
territorial Nasr Unit—the equivalent of a division commander—was killed
along with three other Hezbollah operatives in the strike on a
Hezbollah headquarters.
As the Alma Research and Education Center
recently noted, the Nasr Unit, like the Badr and Aziz Units of
Hezbollah, has a designated geographic territory in southern Lebanon
from which it fires rockets, anti-tank missiles, UAVs and other weapons
at northern Israel, and would be in charge of confronting any future
Israel Defense Forces ground offensive.
The death of Abu Taleb, although a
significant moral blow, did not cripple Hezbollah’s ability to retaliate
swiftly and forcefully. On June 12, the immediate response from
Hezbollah was a barrage of over 250 rockets into northern Israel,
causing widespread fires and damage.
Hezbollah’s military-terrorist
infrastructure and expansive manpower pose the largest conventional
threat to Israel. The limitations of targeted strikes as an approach is
becoming increasingly evident, as is IAF’s ongoing campaign to strike at
Hezbollah weapons storage centers and command posts in a limited
fashion, in line with the Israeli War Cabinet’s directive.
Israel continues to prioritize the Gaza
arena and the War Cabinet instructed the IDF to keep the northern flames
from reaching high intensity. The north, meanwhile, continues to burn.
Hezbollah’s military-terrorist apparatus
is unprecedented. Its firepower arsenal can only be matched by a handful
of military powers. Its extensive, well-organized and deeply embedded
army nestles within Lebanese-Shi’ite civilian society. Hezbollah’s
arsenal of more than 200,000 warheads includes tens of thousands of
rockets and missiles, 140,000 mortar shells, precision-guided munitions
and unmanned aerial vehicles. This arsenal allows Hezbollah to sustain
prolonged conflicts and execute precision strikes against Israeli
targets.
Hezbollah’s increasingly effective use of
UAVs in recent days is another reminder of this persistent threat.
Hezbollah is using the current conflict to rapidly learn how to launch
UAVs at sensitive military facilities in Israel.
In recent weeks, Hezbollah has deployed
drones with greater frequency and effectiveness, targeting military
sites in northern Israel and terrorizing northern communities. On June
10 and 11, Hezbollah’s UAV attacks caused significant damage and fires
in several locations in northern Israel.
100,000 men
With 50,000 active members and an equal
number of reservists, Hezbollah maintains substantial manpower, allowing
the group to absorb losses from targeted strikes and continue its
operations with minimal disruption.
Hezbollah’s organizational structure,
Iranian funding flow (estimated at around $700 million per year) and
recruitment capabilities ensure a continuous flow of personnel to
replace losses. Hence, even significant casualties among high-ranking
members can be mitigated, allowing the group to sustain its operations
over the long term.
As Israel has learned from eight months of
war in Gaza, only a ground incursion could significantly uproot such an
entrenched threat, but it is up to the Cabinet to decide, soon, whether
to activate this option or to try and delay the next northern war,
which could also draw in Iran directly.
Yaakov Lappin is an Israel-based military affairs correspondent and analyst. He is
the in-house analyst at the Miryam Institute; a research associate at
the Alma Research and Education Center; and a research associate at the
Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University. He is a
frequent guest commentator on international television news networks,
including Sky News and i24 News. Lappin is the author of Virtual Caliphate: Exposing the Islamist State on the Internet. Follow him at: www.patreon.com/yaakovlappin.
