ICC issues arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant for Gaza 'war crimes' - Jerusalem Post Staff

 

by Jerusalem Post Staff

The ICC's warrants mean that neither Netanyahu nor Gallant can travel to some 120 countries that are party to the Rome Statute.

 

(L-R): International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim Khan; Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

(photo credit: FLASH90, POOL)

The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on Thursday, the court announced on X/Twitter.

Situation in the State of Palestine:#ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I rejects the State of Israel’s challenges to jurisdiction and issues warrants of arrest for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant. Learn more ⤵️ https://t.co/opHUjZG8BL

— Int'l Criminal Court (@IntlCrimCourt) November 21, 2024

"ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I rejects the State of Israel’s challenges to jurisdiction and issues warrants of arrest for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant," the post read.

The ICC said that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant committed the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other humane acts.

Mohammed Deif and the ICC. (credit: REUTERS/YVES HERMAN, SCREENSHOT VIA X)

The court says it found reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant knowingly deprived Gaza’s civilian population of essential supplies, including food, water, fuel, and medical aid, in violation of international humanitarian law.

These actions allegedly created life-threatening conditions, leading to civilian deaths from malnutrition and dehydration. The disruption of medical supplies also resulted in extreme suffering, including surgeries performed without anesthesia.

The ICC says it found that decisions to allow limited humanitarian aid were often conditional and "not made to fulfill Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law or to ensure that the civilian population in Gaza would be adequately supplied." Rather these decisions were a response to international pressure and requests by the US, the court said. 

The ICC stressed that whether the decisions were conditional or not, "increases in humanitarian assistance were not sufficient to improve the population’s access to essential goods."

According to the court, there are "reasonable grounds" to believe that there was no clear military need or other justification under international law to justify restrictions on humanitarian relief operations.

The Prime Minister's Office responded to the warrants, calling the decision antisemitic. 

"The antisemitic decision of the International Criminal Court is equivalent to a modern-day Dreyfus trial—and it will end the same way," the PMO said.  

"Israel vehemently rejects the absurd and false actions and accusations against it by the International Criminal Court, a biased and discriminatory political body."

The PMO also said that the decision was made by "a corrupt chief prosecutor attempting to save himself from severe allegations of sexual harassment, and by biased judges driven by antisemitic hatred toward Israel," accusing prosecutor Karim Khan of lying to US senators when he said he would not "act against Israel before visiting" Israel. 

"No anti-Israel decision will prevent the State of Israel from defending its citizens," the PMO added, saying that the prime minister "will not succumb to pressure, will not be deterred, and will not retreat until all the war objectives set by Israel at the start of the campaign are achieved."

This means that neither Netanyahu nor Gallant can travel to any of the 120 countries that are party to the Rome Statute.

While the warrants were classified as "secret" to "protect witnesses and to safeguard the conduct of the investigations," the court released the information because "conduct similar to that addressed in the warrant of arrest appears to be ongoing," it said. 

The court also said it would be in the best interest of the victims and families that they be made aware of the warrant's existence.

Additionally, the court issued an arrest warrant for Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri, also known as Mohammed Deif.

The Prosecution had initially filed applications for warrants of arrest for two other senior leaders of Hamas, namely Ismail Haniyeh and Yahya Sinwar. Following confirmation of their deaths, the Chamber granted the withdrawal of the applications on 9 August 2024 and 25 October 2024, respectively.

Regarding Deif, the Prosecution indicated that it would continue to gather information with respect to his reported death. On 15 November 2024, the Prosecution, referring to information from both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities, notified the Chamber that it is not in a position to determine whether Deif has been killed or remains alive. Therefore, the Chamber issues the present warrant of arrest.

Notably, both Israel and Hamas have confirmed Deif's assassination.

Israel's objections

Israel had filed an official objection to the ICC regarding the legality of the prosecutor's request to issue arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant in September.

Israel claimed that the court has no authority to discuss the Palestinian complaint against it, which recently led to the prosecutor's request to issue arrest warrants against the prime minister and the defense minister.

These claims were rejected in pre-trial, with the chamber noting that "the acceptance by Israel of the Court’s jurisdiction is not required, as the Court can exercise its jurisdiction on the basis of territorial jurisdiction of Palestine, as determined by Pre-Trial Chamber I in a previous composition."

The court also said that "the Prosecution notified Israel of the initiation of an investigation in 2021. At that time, despite a clarification request by the Prosecution, Israel elected not to pursue any request for deferral of the investigation," rejecting Israel's second objection.

Anna Barsky contributed to this report.

Jerusalem Post Staff

Source: https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-830135

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Human rights hypocrisy: 'Forced displacement' in, Hamas out - opinion - Gerald M. Steinberg

 

by Gerald M. Steinberg

The combination of falsely accusing Israel of war crimes and ignoring the 1949 Geneva Convention’s prohibition on using civilians and civilian infrastructure for war highlights HRW’s hypocrisy.

 

KENNETH ROTH, then-executive director of Human Rights Watch, speaks at the UN, in 2020. In the propaganda marketing strategy perfected by Roth, NGOs surround themselves with a halo effect based on false images of altruistic, benevolent, and apolitical neutral actors on the world stage.

(photo credit: CARLO ALLEGRI/REUTERS)

Powerful NGOs claiming to promote universal human rights have long been major sources of false claims and hate propaganda targeting Israel. The violent antisemitic attacks that took place in Amsterdam were another manifestation of these campaigns. 

For three decades, the US-based HRW has been among the leaders of this insidious warfare, once again displayed in a new publication cynically headlined “‘Hopeless, Starving, and Besieged: Israel’s Forced Displacement of Palestinians in Gaza.” This form of agit-prop falsely portrays Israel as cruelly, arbitrarily, and needlessly evicting 90% of the Gazan population from their homes, bombing them as they evacuate and depriving them of food, water, and sanitation. 

With an annual budget of about $100 million, HRW claims to advance human rights for all, while disproportionately and brazenly peddling false accusations based on the claims of Hamas. As in all its statements and “reports” on Israel and Palestinians, the HRW staff erases the reality of 17 years of the Hamas reign of terror in Gaza, as well as the mountains of obvious evidence depicting Palestinian war crimes.

This is not merely another biased and inaccurate report that gets a few “cut and paste” headlines from wire services and some posts on social media. 

Like similar publications from the network of anti-Israel advocacy NGOs, the invented headlines drive policy that rewards terror and demonizes Israel and are used to justify antisemitic attacks. In the propaganda marketing strategy perfected by long-time HRW leader Kenneth Roth, the NGOs surround themselves with a halo effect based on false images of altruistic, benevolent, and apolitical neutral actors on the world stage.

Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, attends an interview with Reuters in Geneva, Switzerland, January 12, 2021. (credit: REUTERS/DENIS BALIBOUSE)

This description has not been true for a long time, especially when it comes to Israel, and the consequences are dire.

For example, HRW’s “forced displacement” disinformation campaign again erases the role of the Hamas terror army and its massive infrastructure of excavated tunnels and weapons manufacturing factories in and below houses, schools, hospitals, and mosques. 

Hamas exploiting civilians

The single mention of how Hamas exploits civilians is the ritual assurance that “Human Rights Watch understands and has criticized Hamas and other Palestinian groups for firing rockets from populated areas.” In fact, the very few such criticisms are largely invisible and used as tokens like this one to shift the focus away from Palestinian terror and war crimes.

Following 20 years of systematic malpractice, HRW only mentions the word “tunnel” four times – and only when quoting or referring to Israeli-provided information. The combination of falsely accusing Israel of war crimes and ignoring the 1949 Geneva Convention’s prohibition on using civilians and civilian infrastructure for war – which is the core of the Gaza terror strategy – highlights HRW’s hypocrisy.

Only by falsifying everything about the Gaza conflict, including the IDF’s emphasis on evacuating civilians in order to fight Hamas and destroy the massive underground infrastructure is HRW able to accuse Israel of war crimes. 

Notably, the staffers who wrote this document admit that “it is impossible for Human Rights Watch to fully interrogate the military strategy of the Israeli military.” In fact, HRW clearly has no clue nor interest in understanding the IDF strategy against the brutal war machine constructed under Gaza. Without this information and expertise, there is no foundation for any accusations based on the laws of war, which require evaluating actual battlefield conditions. 

As in other numerous previous reports, the researchers at HRW have demonstrated that they are totally unqualified to write such reports.

In the absence of facts and evidence, HRW substitutes large-scale disinformation and distortion. In “‘Hopeless, Starving, and Besieged: Israel’s Forced Displacement of Palestinians in Gaza,” they cite explicit statements from Israeli officials that demonstrate the legality and necessity of the Gaza strategy: “Israel justified the mass evacuation order as being for the safety of the civilian population and stated military reason... was centered on the presence of Hamas fighters and military infrastructure, including Hamas’ extensive tunnel infrastructure…”

But then, HRW devotes numerous pages to manipulating distorted and cherry-picked quotes in order to falsely claim that the initial IDF actions following the October 7 atrocities were actually designed to punish and displace civilians, with no military necessity. 

Through this entirely false narrative, HRW asserts its central propaganda claim, that “there is no plausible imperative military reason to justify Israel’s mass displacement of nearly all of Gaza’s population, often multiple times.”  For anyone who reads the text (and not merely the press release) with anything like an open mind, the distortion is painfully obvious. 

This is another example of the systematic bias and immorality that permeates HRW, as verified by Danielle Haas, a senior editor at the NGO for 13 years. 

Haas has referred to the “years of politicization” in singling out Israel, violating “basic editorial standards related to rigor, balance, and... the principles of accuracy and fairness.” Recalling this history, Haas observed that HRW staff know that the “unverified accusations would be widely cited as incontrovertible evidence.” 

The clear objective of HRW’s reports, including this one, is to promote the soft-power war based on arms embargoes, boycotts, and demonization that reinforce the hard war led by Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran.

These bogus reports are cited blindly (or consciously) by UN demagogues, biased academics, journalists, and policymakers to prevent Israel from blocking genocidal terror and defending its civilians. By giving credibility to the propaganda produced by HRW and other NGOs, the international law and human rights community, created in the shadow of the Holocaust, has totally betrayed its mission to protect civilian lives.

Gerald M. Steinberg is emeritus professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University and president of NGO Monitor.

Source: https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-830044

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The New Axis of Tyrannies vs. the West: A Mighty Clash of Titans - Nils A. Haug

 

by Nils A. Haug

The Muslim Brotherhood is the catalyst movement behind the modern global jihadist movement, and should rightly be designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Its founder, Hassan al-Banna, said, "it is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet."

 

• The reason for the axis's actions appears to be a desire for a new world order with themselves at the helm. They seem to believe that through their combined effort, America's unipolar global leadership in the political, economic and military spheres can be upended.

• [T]he driving forces underlying this developing clash of major powers have many facets, one of which appears to be religion, always a convenient pretext as so much can never be proven.

• [I]n autocratic or totalitarian regimes comes the imperative to forcefully assert the regime's idea of religion, of its "truth," often upon an unwilling populace. Associated with such systems is the intention of ultimately establishing global compliance with their beliefs, which sometimes appear to be a "religion" of state supremacy.

• Standing in Iran's path is the Jewish state of Israel, whose inhabitants inconveniently refuse to vacate it. To many Islamists, continual jihad appears to go hand-in-hand with the need for acquiring land.

• "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day," the Quran commands Muslims in Surah 9:29.

• To this effect, the February 2024 issue of the Urdu-language al-Qaeda publication Nawa-i-Ghazwa-e-Hind indicates, "Allah has declared Jihad as the path for the enforcement of religion." In plain words, jihad is required to forcibly establish Islam as the one "true" faith – a global religion.

• Hamas's primary concern, however, does not appear to be an independent state for Palestinians -- as it identifies with the Muslim Brotherhood -- but a Sharia-based global Islamic Caliphate through jihad. For Hamas, as for the Muslim Brotherhood, a Palestinian state would be merely the first-step in a wider agenda.

• The Muslim Brotherhood is the catalyst movement behind the modern global jihadist movement, and should rightly be designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Its founder, Hassan al-Banna, said, "it is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet."

• Hassan Nasrallah espoused the same idea: "We won't stop until every country on Earth is ruled by the law of Allah and the people of Islam, like our prophet promised."

• The West, meanwhile, due to a variety of weak and compromised political decisions, has tried to prevent Israel from acting alone in direct conflict with jihadists, whether Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran itself. All the same, the nation of Israel, despite nearly 4,000 years of unremitting challenges to its existence, appears to be enduring just fine.

Driven by disparate ideologies, a new axis of hegemonic dictatorships includes Russia, with imperialist aims over vast regions, Slavic and otherwise; China, with a desire for world domination; Iran, striving for a global Islamist Caliphate; and North Korea, apparently intent on seizing the Korean peninsula, for a start. Pictured: Russian President Vladimir Putin meets with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian at the BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia on October 23, 2024. (Photo by Maxim Shemetov/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

The volatile world political order currently reflects a clash between an axis of hegemonic dictatorships flexing their increasing military prowess, and an alliance of Western nations, including Israel, the West's sole democratic partner in the Middle East.

Driven by disparate ideologies, the axis includes Russia, with imperialist aims over vast regions, Slavic and otherwise; China, with a desire for world domination; Iran, striving for a global Islamist Caliphate; and, to a lesser degree, North Korea, apparently intent on seizing the Korean peninsula, for a start.

The reason for the axis's actions appears to be a desire for a new world order with themselves at the helm. They seem to believe that through their combined effort, America's unipolar global leadership in the political, economic and military spheres can be upended.

In digging deeper, however, the driving forces underlying this developing clash of major powers have many facets, one of which appears to be religion, always a convenient pretext as so much can never be proven. If that is so, the ultimate conflict could be between opposing expressions of "truth" for at the heart of all religion, and imitations thereof, is the concept of "truth," which many religions seem to believe belongs exclusively to them.

While major religions claim to be sole custodians of "truth," in autocratic or totalitarian regimes comes the imperative to forcefully assert the regime's idea of religion, of its "truth," often upon an unwilling populace. Associated with such systems is the intention of ultimately establishing global compliance with their beliefs, which sometimes appear to be a "religion" of state supremacy.

In February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine, after having annexed Crimea in 2014. Russian President Vladimir Putin's ruthless aggression in the region seems driven by an imperialist ideology to seize further territory.

The proposed empire would presumably reflect the supremacy of the Russian Orthodox religion, to be imposed throughout the "Russian World." An analysis by Professor Dmitry Adamsky of the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel, as set out in his 2019 publication, Russian Nuclear Orthodoxy, suggests that view:

"Faith, has a high profile in President Putin's private and public conduct and in domestic and foreign policy for it (faith) is a measure of national identity. It has also saturated the Russian nuclear military-industrial complex."

This situation is not surprising as the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, was at one time a KGB officer, who declared that the Ukraine invasion was warranted as a "Holy War."

Adamsky describes "the unprecedented role that the Orthodox faith has played in Russian identity, politics, and national security and focuses on the bond that has emerged between the Kremlin, the ROC, and the nuclear weapons community," and labels this interactive relationship as "Russian Nuclear Orthodoxy."

In seeking to re-establish the historic Russian Empire, Putin has displayed an objective founded on the ambitions of Peter the Great (1682-1725), and the succeeding Communist regime of the USSR. Putin refers to this area as his "Russian World" comprising, apart from Russia, Slavic countries such as Belarus, Moldova, the Baltic states, and Ukraine. Due to their proximity, these regions are vulnerable to Russian military subjugation and demographic takeovers.

In October 2021, at the Valdai Forum, Putin gave a speech described by his foreign policy advisor Sergey Karaganov as "the first major call for reinventing Russian ideology for Russia and the world." Karaganov added, "the main process now taking place in the world is the loss by the West of its previous positions."

Journalist Anna Mahjar-Barducci summed it up: "Putin's speech can be viewed as an ideological manifesto that tries to put Russia back in the center of the world's political map."

Iran is the primary instigator of continuing attacks upon Israel, both directly and by its proxies, which front for the regime: Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and other like-minded jihadists. Notwithstanding Iran's proxies' purporting to redress the supposed injustice of the Palestinian land issue, this is not quite the whole truth. The core issue is not just the acreage, it seems, but the intent to establish an Islamist Caliphate throughout the region and, eventually, globally. Standing in Iran's path is the Jewish state of Israel, whose inhabitants inconveniently refuse to vacate it. To many Islamists, continual jihad appears to go hand-in-hand with the need for acquiring land.

To this effect, the February 2024 issue of the Urdu-language al-Qaeda publication Nawa-i-Ghazwa-e-Hind indicates, "Allah has declared Jihad as the path for the enforcement of religion." In plain words, jihad is required to forcibly establish Islam as the one "true" faith – a global religion.

In September 2024, Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority (PA), which governs Muslims in the West Bank of Israel, referred to Jerusalem's Temple Mount (the holiest Jewish site) as the "exclusive property of Muslims." The site is actually holy to both Jews and Muslims. Underlying nearly all Islamist conversation seems to be the issue of religion and the belief that Islam is to dominate the world, including Jerusalem and all Israel.

After the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in late September, Islamist teacher Tarek Bazzi rhapsodized in Dearborn, Michigan, "Find me a religion that has produced a human being so complete, so perfect, and so immaculate" as Nasrallah. The West, Bazzi added, dared to have the "audacity to point their criminal fingers and project their terrorism onto the soldiers and saints of the Lord of the Universe."

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day," the Quran commands Muslims in Surah 9:29. The Islamic State (ISIS) terror group takes this command further by seeking a Caliphate. The February 1, 2024, issue of its official newsletter, Al-Naba, included an editorial boasting that ISIS's establishment of an Islamic caliphate "drew the envy of other Islamist and jihadi factions that had fought against it and allied with Western powers." Although ISIS's proposed caliphate was destroyed by Western forces, "its ideological appeal endures" and most likely acts as a stimulant to other jihadists.

Hamas's primary concern, however, does not appear to be an independent state for Palestinians -- as it identifies with the Muslim Brotherhood -- but a Sharia-based global Islamic Caliphate through jihad. For Hamas, as for the Muslim Brotherhood, a Palestinian state would be merely the first-step in a wider agenda.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the catalyst movement behind the modern global jihadist movement, and should rightly be designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Its founder, Hassan al-Banna, said, "it is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet."

Hassan Nasrallah espoused the same idea: "We won't stop until every country on Earth is ruled by the law of Allah and the people of Islam, like our prophet promised."

In China, the citizenry is subject to the tyrannical policies and rule of the entrenched Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Fealty to the state is the official state "religion" of Marxist-Leninism and Communism. Certain state-approved religious denominations, however, can officially operate under the strict supervision of the CCP. It is not surprising, therefore, that China persecutes Jews and Christians due to their claims, which run contrary to official dogma.

Should America's fail to counter China's hegemonic aims, the new global landscape would be a repressive, totalitarian, brutal regime (for instance here and here). China's possible advent as world leader would enable it to enforce its Marxist ideology and cause the demise or compromise of essential Western freedoms.

Currently, the US and its allied Western powers face an aggressive China apparently intent on asserting its superiority over the existing unipolar order. A new way of life would be tyrannically enforced.

The Islamic Republic of Iran, together with its jihadist proxies and supporting Muslim nations, directly challenges the Judeo-Christian principled West, and Israel, for military control of the greater Middle East and beyond. Iran appears to be determined to impose strict Islamic Sharia law upon all residents, under an Islamist Caliphate.

The West, meanwhile, due to a variety of weak and compromised political decisions, has tried to prevent Israel from acting alone in direct conflict with jihadists, whether Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran itself. All the same, the nation of Israel, despite nearly 4,000 years of unremitting challenges to its existence, appears to be enduring just fine.

 
Nils A. Haug is an author and columnist. A Lawyer by profession, he is member of the International Bar Association, the National Association of Scholars, the Academy of Philosophy and Letters. Retired from law, his particular field of interest is political theory intersecting with current events. He holds a Ph.D. in Theology (Apologetics). Dr. Haug is author of 'Politics, Law, and Disorder in the Garden of Eden – the Quest for Identity'; and 'Enemies of the Innocent – Life, Truth, and Meaning in a Dark Age.' His work has appeared in First Things Journal, The American Mind, Quadrant, Minding the Campus, Gatestone Institute, National Association of Scholars, Document Danmark, Jewish News Syndicate, and elsewhere.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21134/new-axis-of-tyrannies

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Cop who fatally shot J6 protestor has lengthy disciplinary record that includes gun incidents - John Solomon and Steven Richards

 

by John Solomon and Steven Richards

The issues in officer Michael Byrd's background included a failed shotgun qualification test, a failed FBI background check, a suspension for a lost weapon and referral to prosecutors for firing his gun at a stolen car.

 

The Capitol Police officer who fatally shot Ashli Babbitt during the Jan. 6 riots and then was promoted has a lengthy internal affairs and disciplinary record that includes firearm-related incidents, a sweeping congressional investigation has found. 

The issues in Captain Michael Byrd's background included a failed shotgun qualification test, a failed FBI background check for a weapon's purchase, a 33-day suspension for a lost weapon and referral to Maryland state prosecutors for firing his gun at a stolen car fleeing his neighborhood, according to congressional and police documents obtained by Just the News.

Byrd’s record was uncovered during a larger House Administration Oversight Subcommittee investigation into the Capitol Police disciplinary process and was chronicled in a letter Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., the panel's chairman, sent Wednesday to the department's chief, Thomas Manger, in which the lawmaker expressed concerns about the officer’s promotion to captain. 

“This Subcommittee is dedicated to ensuring USCP has autonomy from political pressures so it can make operational and personnel decisions,” Loudermilk wrote in the letter. “However, based on the information obtained by the Subcommittee regarding USCP’s handling of Captain Byrd following January 6, 2021, and his significant disciplinary history, I have concerns about USCP’s decision to promote him to the rank of Captain.” 

You can read the letter below: List of incidents:

11.20.2024 Letter From Rep. Barry Loudermilk to USCP Chief of Police Manger.pdf

The incidents described in Loudermilk's letter are corroborated by congressional records and police reports that date as early as 2004 including: 

• A 2004 incident where Byrd, who was off duty, fired his weapon at a stolen vehicle as it was fleeing his residential neighborhood;
• A 2015 "conduct unbecoming an officer" complaint filed by a fellow officer after Byrd, again off duty, confronted him while the officer was working at a high school football game in an incident with racial overtones; 
• A 33-day suspension in 2019 after Byrd left his service weapon unattended in a public Capitol Hill bathroom; 
• A failure to pass a routine background check shortly after Jan. 6 when attempting to purchase a shotgun for home protection, after the USCP worked to provide Byrd a department-issued shotgun instead, he failed the training; and
• Three further referrals to the Capitol Police Office of Professional Responsibility for which records are reportedly missing. 

Mark Schamel, the lawyer representing Byrd, did not respond several requests for comment. The U.S. Capitol Police also did not return several inquiries from Just the News.

"I showed utmost courage"

In his only interview to date, Byrd told NBC News' Lester Holt about his experience on Jan. 6 and defended the decisions that he made that day, including to use his firearm against Ashli Babbitt, a pro-Trump protestor who had entered the Capitol. 

"I believe I showed utmost courage on January 6, and it's time for me to do that now," Byrd said when he was asked why he decided to come forward publicly. 

He told Holt that he was "very afraid" that day as protestors threatened to climb through the barricades blocking the doors into the House chambers while he was simultaneously hearing reports from around the Capitol of "breaches of different barricaded areas, officers being overrun, [and] officers being downed." 

Ultimately, Byrd defended his choice to shoot an unarmed Ashli Babbitt, saying that in his assessment, she was "posing a threat" to the members of the House he was tasked with protecting. 

"I had been yelling and screaming as loud as I was: please stop! Get back! Get back! Stop!" Byrd said. "We had weapons drawn," he recounted. "She was posing a threat to [the] United States House of Representatives."

"Lawful and within Department policy." 

"I can only control my reaction, my training, my level of expertise," he said when asked why he fired his weapon that day while other officers in similar situations did not. 

"I do my job for Republican, for Democrat, for white, for black," Byrd said, saying that he would have done the same whether it was members of the House or then-President Trump himself, to dispel accusations of political bias. 

An internal USCP investigation completed in August 2021 determined that then-Lieutenant Byrd's conduct was "lawful and within Department policy." As a result, the department concluded that Byrd would not face any internal discipline for the officer involved shooting. 

"[An] officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury," USCP policy says. 

"The actions of the officer in this case potentially saved Members and staff from serious injury and possible death from a large crowd of rioters who forced their way into the U.S. Capitol and to the House Chamber where Members and staff were steps away," USCP determined, concluding that Byrd's actions were justified. 

By 2023, Byrd was promoted to the rank of captain by Capitol Police leadership. 

Loudermilk is specifically concerned about Byrd’s promotion because of his lengthy disciplinary history, which includes at least two firearm incidents and one confrontation with another officer while off duty. 

In 2004 — in the earliest event uncovered by Loudermilk’s investigation — then-Sergeant Byrd attempted to halt a car theft while he was off duty by brandishing his gun and firing two shots at a stolen vehicle in the middle of a suburban neighborhood, according to a Capitol Police Internal Affairs report reviewed by Just the News.

When explaining the incident to investigators, Byrd claimed that he fired his weapon at the oncoming vehicle as it tried to strike him. But, when the vehicle was found officers located one bullet hole in the rear of the vehicle that entered from behind, contradicting Byrd’s account, according to Loudermilk’s letter.

The detective investigating the incident concluded that Byrd exhibited bad judgement, intervening himself while off duty and discharging his weapon in an irresponsible manner.

“Just like I explained to [Byrd], when he saw what he saw outside of the window, I understand him being an officer, but it’s a stolen vehicle and it’s like call the police,” the detective is quoted as saying in the report.

The detective referred the case to the state’s attorney office as required by police policy. Byrd faced charges of “First Degree Assault" for firing two rounds into vehicles that attempted to assault him, according to an internal affairs report reviewed by Just the News.

The state prosecutor ultimately decided not to pursue charges but concluded Byrd exhibited “bad judgement,” according the internal affairs report. The Capitol Police Office of Professional Responsibility found that Byrd’s conduct was unbecoming and suspended him for seven days without pay, according to Loudermilk. 

Byrd remained adamant that his actions were justified. He told investigators that he did not believe he had used his weapon in “a careless or imprudent manner” and denied any wrongdoing at all. 

“[If] the incident occurred again he would not do anything differently,” the report summarizes. Byrd appealed OPR’s findings of misconduct to a Disciplinary Review Board, which ultimately overturned the findings and punishment.

Series of firearms-related incidents

Loudermilk’s letter raised serious concerns about the entire episode, including Byrd’s account to police that he fired at a vehicle trying to strike him when the evidence fellow officers found at the scene indicated he shot at the vehicle after it had already passed him and no longer posed a threat.

“OPR noted that ‘based on the location of the shell casings and the angle that Sergeant Byrd alleged he discharged his service weapon,’ Byrd’s testimony that he fired at the vans as they attempted to hit him is ‘inaccurate,’” Loudermilk wrote. “OPR concluded that the evidence suggests Byrd ‘discharged his service weapon at the vans after they passed him by,’” the letter added.

In 2015, Byrd again found himself the subject of an official complaint. A Montgomery County, Maryland, police officer filed a complaint against Byrd with the USCP after an alleged confrontation with him at a local high school football game.

Like the stolen car incident, Byrd was off duty when he confronted the Maryland officer, who was working to keep spectators from walking on to the school field, according to an incident report reviewed by Just the News. 

Byrd allegedly called the officer “a piece of shit, asshole, racist,” though it is unclear why Byrd became angry with him.

In 2019, Byrd faced scrutiny for another firearms incident and was ultimately suspended for 33 days after an investigation. Public reports at the time show Byrd left his service weapon in a public bathroom in the Capitol Visitor Center complex frequented by tourists and visitors. The weapon was only discovered during a routine security sweep of the building in the public place.

Byrd was the commander of the House Chambers section of the USCP at the time of the incident. 

"The Department takes these matters very seriously, and has a very thorough process to investigate and review incidents such as these, and holds personnel accountable for their actions,” a Capitol Police spokesperson said after the firearm was discovered. 

According to Loudermilk, USCP records “indicate three additional USCP OPR referrals against Byrd,” but the records are “reportedly missing [...] This is disappointing, as the inability to locate these documents hinders the Subcommittee from fulfilling its responsibility to conduct comprehensive oversight over the USCP,” Loudermilk wrote. 

Following the Jan. 6 riot and in light of the threats he faced stemming from the office involved shooting, Byrd attempted to purchase a shotgun for personal home protection but failed to pass a routine FBI background check and training, thus he was unable to complete the purchase, the documents show. 

He then enlisted the help of USCP to help resolve the issue. The department attempted to provide Byrd a department issued shotgun, in case the background check “did not come though.” However, he failed the shotgun training, according to the documents reviewed by Just the News.

 
John Solomon and Steven Richards

Source: https://justthenews.com/accountability/hldcop-who-shot-j6-protestor-has-lengthy-disciplinary-record-mishandled-firearms

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Israel-bashers lose votes but gain ground among Democrats - Jonathan S. Tobin

 

by Jonathan S. Tobin

An election post-mortem should mean confronting rather than appeasing progressive antisemites. The future of a bipartisan pro-Israel consensus hangs in the balance.

 

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), joined by fellow Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.), departs from a news conference on restricting arms sales to Israel at the U.S. Capitol on Nov. 19, 2024 in Washington, D.C. Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images.

At least for now, the worst-case scenario for Israel has been averted. The decision by the Biden administration to veto a U.N. Security Council resolution that would have mandated an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in the Gaza Strip was a setback for Hamas, as well as its allies and enablers in the international community. Had it passed, it would have prevented Israel from continuing efforts to mop up the remnants of the terror group and allowed Hamas to reassert control over parts of the area from which it launched the massacre in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

As important as that may be, what is uncertain is whether the motivations behind the veto will be reflected in the stands Democrats take in the coming years. With the party forced to ponder why exactly the voters rejected them in the 2024 election, both moderates and left-wingers are accusing each other of being to blame for the triumph of President-elect Donald Trump and the incoming GOP majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

It may be just one among many issues that will be part of the 2024 post-mortem debate. But their attitude towards Israel will be one of the key indications determining whether Democrats continue to drift to the left or move back to the center as they try to return to power.

No stab in the back

The American veto was contrary to the expectations of many in the pro-Israel community who feared that the lame-duck administration of President Joe Biden would stab the Jewish state in the back in much the same manner as did his old boss, former President Barack Obama. In December of 2016 with only a few weeks left in his term of office, Obama had ordered his U.N. ambassador not to veto a resolution that effectively branded the Jewish presence in much of Jerusalem, and Judea and Samaria, as illegal.

Related Articles

ICC issues arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant over Gaza ‘war crimes’Nov. 21, 2024

Netanyahu’s office calls ICC warrants a ‘modern-day Dreyfus trial’Nov. 21, 2024

Herzog: ICC decision a ‘dark day for justice’Nov. 21, 2024

The current resolution, which had the support of every one of the 10 non-permanent members of the UNSC (Algeria, Ecuador, Guyana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, South Korea and Switzerland) as well as the four other permanent members (the United Kingdom, Russia, France and China). But Washington had insisted that any ceasefire resolution must also explicitly state that the remaining 101 hostages still being held by Hamas somewhere in the Gaza Strip be released. The vetoed resolution mentioned the hostages but their theoretical release would have only come after Israel had been forced to stop its military pressure on Hamas. That would have guaranteed that their suffering would continue indefinitely and give the terrorists more leverage to demand more far-reaching Israeli concessions to secure the release of those captives who remain alive.

The veto might be a sign of an administration that—although it has been talking out of both sides of its mouth about the post-Oct. 7 war with Iran’s terror proxies—is still not ready to completely abandon Israel. Biden’s team of Obama alumni bitterly resents the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has courageously ignored most of their advice in the last year as he pursued victory over Hamas in the south and Hezbollah to the north. Many Democrats, including some inside the government as well as in Congress, were hoping for the administration to vent that resentment by letting a deeply prejudiced anti-Israel majority at the United Nations force Israel to let Hamas survive. The veto may well be an indication that even in the Biden White House, there is an understanding that punishing Israel for defending itself is immoral and against the strategic interests of the United States.

But with many questioning who is really in charge in Washington as an aging and visibly declining Biden seems increasingly detached from policy debates, it may also be a sign of the confusion and policy stasis that is inevitable in an essentially leaderless government.

Whatever the reason, the consequences of that decision shouldn’t be underestimated. 

Had Biden let the current ceasefire resolution pass, it would have encouraged a triumphant Hamas to make good on its promises to inflict more barbaric Oct. 7-style horrors on Israelis. Yet barring a change of heart in the next two months (a possibility that can’t be discounted) before President-elect Donald Trump takes office, that danger has been averted.

In doing so, the administration has given some comfort to those who have not given up hope that a bipartisan pro-Israel consensus might be preserved.

Progressives embrace Hamas propaganda

Such hope has come under serious strain in the 13 months since the war on Hamas and other Iranian proxies began after Oct. 7. Democrats—most particularly, Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris—sought to balance their need to avoid alienating pro-Israel voters with a desire to avoid distancing the growing intersectional anti-Israel faction among Democrats. This faction, made up of not just the radicals of the far-left “Squad” in the House but of many of those who label themselves as “progressives,” has embraced Hamas propaganda about Israel committing war crimes and even the big lie about “genocide” in Gaza.

That’s the impetus for the push for Senate resolutions proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), whose goal was to prevent the transfer of offensive weapons from the United States to Israel. As the comments of those prominent Democrats and anti-Israeli groups that supported the measures indicated, the support for a ceasefire in Gaza on humanitarian grounds has morphed into an acceptance of the big lies spread by Israel’s enemies about Netanyahu pursuing “genocide” by deliberately seeking to starve Palestinians as well as the “indiscriminate” killings of civilians.

These charges have been refuted by those who have observed how scrupulous the Israel Defense Forces have been in trying to avoid civilian deaths. Jerusalem has also allowed humanitarian aid to flow continuously to Palestinians into Gaza, including areas controlled by Hamas, which steals the food and supplies for their own use. The claims about “genocide” and Israeli war crimes once only heard from radicals are now being voiced by more mainstream Democrats.

Given the overwhelming support for Israel among Republicans and the fact that many Democrats and the White House opposed it, Sanders’s effort never had a chance to pass even in a Senate still run by Biden’s party until it changes hands in January. But 19 Democrats, including some supposedly non-radicals like Sens. Dick Durban (D-Ill.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Brian Schatz (D-Ha.) and Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.)—Schatz, Ossoff and Sanders are Jewish—joined with  Senate left-wingers in seeking to disarm Israel.

The defeat of Sanders’s resolutions will, like the UNSC resolution, also be touted by pro-Israel Democrats as proof that the party has not abandoned the Jewish state. Still, the fact that so many Democrats were prepared to accept the misinformation about Israel’s actions promoted by antisemitic groups and others who are doing the bidding of Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah in the United States is telling. It provides further evidence of the way that their party is increasingly divided about support for the Jewish state and ensuring the safety of American Jews under siege from leftists calling for Israel’s destruction and violence against Jews everywhere.

As indicated in an article by Jonathan Weisman, deputy Washington editor of The New York Times and an inveterate Israel-basher, the Democrats’ stand on Israel and the post-Oct. 7 surge in antisemitism will be tested again before long. The unwillingness of many Democrats to vote for the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act—geared to ensure that the federal government uses the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of Jew-hatred when seeking to combat its spread on college campuses—is another indication of the effort to steer it further to the left.

Though outgoing Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has sought to postpone a vote on the act, he finally agreed to let it come to the Senate floor this week by tying it to another bill. Schumer’s own hypocritical betrayal of Jewish students was exposed by a House investigation of antisemitism at campuses like Columbia University.

Some 70 progressive Democrats and 21 GOP House members (including Attorney General nominee Matt Gaetz) opposed it, though the Republicans did so out of a mistaken belief that its language identified Christian beliefs along with efforts to compare Israel to the Nazis as evidence of antisemitism. But many Democrats and the vast majority of Republicans will likely back it. Nevertheless, the debate within both parties about combating antisemitism and refusing to betray Israel signifies a lot about the future of American politics.

Election post-mortem

As is usually the case with election loss post-mortems, Democrats were quick to form a circular firing squad as both moderates and leftists sought to assign blame for Harris’s loss on their intra-party rivals, the candidate herself, Biden and anyone else they could think of.

Centrists want the party to free itself of the burden of defending radical ideologies like gender theory, critical race theory and intersectionality. Along with the party’s shift towards being the home of credentialed elites and its contempt for the working class, these toxic ideas have done much to tarnish the Democratic brand.

Left-wingers have spent the weeks since the election not just mourning Trump’s victory but accusing the half of the country that voted for him of being fascists, racists and misogynists. They want to double down on ideology, and blame Biden and Harris for being too centrist. In particular, they believe that the ambivalent policy towards Israel’s war on Islamist terrorists alienated young voters and others who might have turned out to support a party that embraced the Palestinian myth about Gaza genocide, Israeli war crimes and many other related issues.

This is deeply foolish since there were always more pro-Israel votes in the center to be lost by Harris’s inability to fully condemn the pro-Hamas mobs than on the antisemitic left, where left-wing extremists and Muslim Americans were demanding a more anti-Israel stand.

The logic of American politics dictates that Democrats will return to power when they shuck off the yoke of radicals. Doing otherwise is political malpractice and a gift to a GOP now faced with the challenge of governing. As Democrats face four years of a Trump 2.0 administration that is as pro-Israel as his first, the temptation to oppose everything he does may well shift even more in the party to the left as well as bolster the ranks of anti-Israel progressives.

For now, at least, in the halls of the United Nations and Congress, Israel can still count on some support from Democrats. But if a bipartisan pro-Israel consensus is increasingly a thing of the past, the threat comes almost entirely from a growing left-wing faction of the Democrats. The fate of that party, in addition to hopes to maintain support for the Jewish state on both sides of the aisle, may well hang on whether Israel-bashers continue to gain ground or are banished by responsible Democrats to the fever swamps of the far left, where they belong.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of JNS (Jewish News Syndicate). Follow him @jonathans_tobin.

Source: https://www.jns.org/israel-bashers-lose-votes-but-gain-ground-among-democrats/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Post-war Gaza: Can Hamas maintain its grip amid destruction? Salem Alketbi

 

by Salem Alketbi

Hamas’s fate in post-war Gaza hinges on military outcomes and governance plans.

 

A BILLBOARD with a picture of former Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar is displayed on a building in Tehran. Speculation about Hamas’s collapse intensified with the absence of a unified leadership after Sinwar’s death, says the writer.

(photo credit: WEST ASIA NEWS AGENCY/REUTERS)

Many historical examples demonstrate that terror groups with specific ideological foundations undergo life cycles, often marked by critical turning points or crises. Examples include the disintegration of al-Qaeda and Daesh, which fractured into decentralized networks across multiple regions without unified command structures, though they retain their original names for various purposes.

A shared factor in the fragmentation of such groups is exposure to severe military setbacks or the loss of key leaders. This raises questions about the potential disintegration of the Hamas terror group following the ongoing war in Gaza.

Speculation about Hamas’s collapse intensified with the absence of unified leadership after the death of Yahya Sinwar and the movement’s reliance on a joint leadership council.

The war’s end is likely to trigger extensive reevaluation, as it may be difficult for Hamas to continue, either due to the destruction of its military and organizational infrastructure or due to regional and international plans to completely exclude it from governing Gaza.

While some reports suggest Hamas has resumed activities in northern Gaza under local backing, this does not guarantee the movement’s sustainability. The current situation is developing and complex. With no viable governance alternative, Hamas’s presence may act as a refuge for residents – driven by fear or inability to resist.

The house where Sinwar was killed in southern Gaza with an Israeli, Kfir and Paratrooper Brigade flags planted on top, October 20, 2024. (credit: Chen Shimmel)

Hamas needs an alternative to remain in power

The lack of a unified post-war governance framework could facilitate Hamas’s gradual reemergence. Ultimately, the movement’s survival hinges on the availability of an institutional alternative to manage Gaza, particularly to ensure law and order amid utter disorder.

Hamas’s cohesion or collapse will depend on how the current conflict with Israel concludes. If Israel does not deliver a decisive defeat, Hamas could remain cohesive, interpreting its survival as a symbolic victory, even from a propaganda angle.

Another important factor will be the stance of other Palestinian factions, particularly with pressures on the Palestinian Authority for reforms and anti-corruption measures. The Palestinian Authority’s persistence in its current state encourages the formation of parallel power structures or the emergence of new, extremist movements under different names.

Furthermore, local perspectives on recent events may not favor Hamas, given the widespread destruction across Gaza, which the movement cannot adequately address. Regional or international bodies are unlikely to engage in reconstruction efforts while Hamas holds power, either as the main ruler or a partner in governance.

Internal pressures could push toward the movement’s fragmentation or an attempt to avoid accountability, potentially giving rise to splinter groups with similar ideologies.

The situation could mirror the Afghan Taliban’s resilience against US forces, where the Taliban maintained cohesion due to the US military’s inability to secure a decisive defeat.

This contrasts with Daesh and al-Qaeda, which, following clear military defeats, dispersed across various regions. Unlike Osama bin Laden’s death, which had a profound impact on al-Qaeda, the loss of Sinwar – a figure in a chain of leaders targeted by Israel – has not led to Hamas’s collapse.

Hamas’s future appears tied to two critical factors: first, the outcomes of military operations and the movement’s human and material losses; and second, the nature of post-war governance and the existence of a competent alternative.

This replacement must manage security, discipline, and daily life in Gaza more effectively than Hamas, potentially forcing the group into retreat and possibly exposing internal conflicts previously overshadowed by the ongoing military crisis.

Salem Alketbi is a United Arab Emirates political analyst and former Federal National Council candidate.

Source: https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-830046

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Stefanik blasts UN over its anti-Israel bias: A den of antisemitism - Elad Benari

 

by Elad Benari

Rep. Elise Stefanik, designated US Ambassador to the United Nations, delivers forceful critique of the organization: It betrayed both Israel and the United States.

 

Elise Stefanik                                                          REUTERS/Andrew Kelly/File Photo

Rep. Elise Stefanik, the designated US Ambassador to the United Nations, delivered a forceful critique of the organization she is poised to represent, condemning the UN as a “den of antisemitism” in a speech on Tuesday, reported The New York Post.

Stefanik expressed her commitment to addressing this issue in her upcoming role during remarks at the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET)’s annual dinner, where she was honored with the Rays of Light in the Darkness Award.

“We know that the UN is a den of antisemitism,” Stefanik said in her address. She accused the organization of betraying both Israel and the United States, particularly since Hamas’ October 7, 2023 terrorist attacks against Israel.

“The UN has continuously betrayed Israel and betrayed America, acting as an apologist for Iran and their terrorist proxies,” she stated.

Stefanik highlighted specific instances of what she described as UN failures, including UN Women deleting a post condemning the Hamas attack, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs relying on data from the Hamas-run Gazan “health ministry”, and the presence of Hamas-linked staff within the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA).

In her remarks at the EMET dinner, Stefanik commended President-elect Donald Trump’s pro-Israel stance.

“I believe it is quite obvious to the world that if President Trump were in the White House today, what has been happening at the UN would never have happened, because October 7th would never have happened,” she asserted.

She vowed to uphold Trump’s “America First” policies and to bring “moral truth and crystal clear moral clarity at the United Nations on Day One.”

Stefanik, who has been a staunch supporter of Israel, visited Israel in May and spoke at the Knesset, where she criticized President Joe Biden for his policy approach to Israel and the war in Gaza.

Stefanik rose to prominence when she grilled presidents of universities at a hearing of the House Education Committee which dealt with the phenomenon of rising antisemitism on college campuses, and exposed their failure to confirm that calls for the genocide of Jews violated their schools’ rules.

Elad Benari

Source: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/399530

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Bipartisanship will prevail despite Dem support for Israel embargo, senators say - Mike Wagenheim

 

by Mike Wagenheim

“If they want to go down in flames, then that’s their choice,” Sen. John Fetterman told JNS regarding Democratic colleagues who voted against Israel.

 

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), joined by fellow senators U.S. Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) (L) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) (R), speaks at a news conference on restricting arms sales to Israel at the U.S. Capitol on Nov. 19, 2024 in Washington, D.C. Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images.

Several Democratic senators told JNS on Wednesday night that the significant number of their colleagues who voted for an Israeli arms embargo weren’t representative of the party. Republicans in the upper chamber said the figure—up to 19 on one measure—represented the Democrats’ abandonment of a key ally.

Asked how decisive an issue the votes on the three resolutions of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), which would have banned the transfer of certain categories of weapons to Israel, were for his party, Cory Booker (D-N. J.) said, “When you say it’s for the party, to me this is not a party issue. This is something that should be considered on the merits, and I’ve made my decision.”

Booker voted against all three resolutions.

So did Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), who told JNS that his colleagues who sided with Sanders were “entitled to do that. If they want to go down in flames, then that’s their choice.”

Asked whether the large number of Democrats who voted against Israel would impact the ability of the Senate to act in a bipartisan fashion on Israel-related issues under the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump, Fetterman demurred.

Related Articles

ICC issues arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant over Gaza ‘war crimes’Nov. 21, 2024

Netanyahu’s office calls ICC warrants a ‘modern-day Dreyfus trial’Nov. 21, 2024

Herzog: ICC decision a ‘dark day for justice’Nov. 21, 2024

“It’s very clear that I only control my vote. But I’ve always stood with Israel,” said the progressive freshman, who has surprisingly become among the Senate’s most outspoken backers of the Jewish state. “The administration will change, but my commitment to Israel won’t.”

But Republicans told JNS it was evident that commitment didn’t extend through the party, even as President Joe Biden and his administration attempted to whip senators on the fence to vote down the resolutions.

Asked if he was heartened by the White House’s effort, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) told JNS,  “Well, I suppose. I mean, it is amazing that there are Democrat senators who are even more anti-Israel than the Biden White House and the Kamala Harris White House.” 

Cruz laid blame on Biden himself for the position Israel currently faces.

“We went from peace, from Arabs and Israelis sitting down and finding common ground, to where we are now—the worst war in the Middle East in 50 years, following the worst mass murder of Jews in a single day since the Holocaust,” said Cruz. 

“This is the direct fruit of a weak commander in chief in America and of an asinine foreign policy that sends over $100 billion to [Iranian] Ayatollah [Ali] Khamenei. Iran provides 90% of the funding for Hamas, and it provides 90% of the funding for Hezbollah,” said Cruz. “Unfortunately, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have sent the money to Iran that have paid for this war, and have paid for these atrocities.”

Cruz said that when he was first elected to the Senate 12 years ago, “there was a real bipartisan coalition in America in support of Israel.”

Now, he claims, “The Democrats today, they range from supporting the radicals in their party to being simply afraid to cross them.” 

Sen. Josh Hawley (R- Mo.) expressed hope that a sense of bipartisanship could return, though he said he was puzzled by his counterparts’ behavior.

“I guess the good news is that on the one hand, 18 is not a really big number, so I’d hope there’ll be a lot of chances to work across the aisle,” said Hawley of the number of Democrats who voted in favor of Sanders’ first resolution. “On the other hand, 18? I don’t understand my Democratic colleagues’ position on this. To me this is crazy. Why wouldn’t we be saying Israel has the right to defend itself and we’re proud to stand with our ally? To me, this is no debate at all, so I think it’s crazy stuff.”

Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), who is set to retake the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when Republicans take hold of the Senate in January, told JNS he was confident that the bipartisan nature of the U.S.-Israel relationship would hold, and that Trumps’ pro-Israel policies would pull Democrats in, rather than lead to resistance. 

“Look, we’ve always had strong, strong bipartisan support for Israel. That’s not going to change in the next Trump administration,” said Risch. 

Asked whether Democrats siding with Sanders were doing so in good faith on the issue, Risch refused to speak for them.

“I don’t want to answer a question like that. You’d need to talk to them about why they’re doing what they’re doing,” he said. “These speeches ought to be given about the bad things that Hamas has done, and not trying to blame this on Israel. Everything that has happened is the result of that attack which took place on Oct. 7, which lies right at the feet, and right in the hands of Hamas.”

His counterpart, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Ben Cardin of Maryland, concurred, telling JNS that he doesn’t think the effort by Sanders is “serving any purpose. I think it’s a mistake to have this vote. I think it’s the wrong vehicle for the proponents to get their message out. I don’t think this has to do with humanitarian assistance at all.” 

While saying he wasn’t surprised by the number of Democrats siding with Sanders, Cardin was confident that the issue of Israel wouldn’t divide the party.

“I think we’ll get through this,” said Cardin. 

Mike Wagenheim

Source: https://www.jns.org/bipartisanship-will-prevail-despite-dem-support-for-israel-embargo-senators-say/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter