The Palestinian terrorist organization reportedly fired an anti-tank missile at Israeli military engineering vehicles operating in the area earlier on Sunday.
Israeli soldiers stand next to tanks near the Israel-Gaza border, in Israel, October 19, 2025(photo credit: REUTERS/AMIR COHEN)
The IDF confirmed on Sunday that it conducted strikes against Hamas in Rafah after the terror group fired an anti-tank missile and gunfire toward Israeli soldiers.
Following
the incident, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu instructed Israel's
armed forces to respond with force against Gazan terror targets during a
consultation with Defense Minister Israel Katz and the heads of
Israel's security establishment, the Prime Minister's Office announced.
A
senior Hamas official accused Netanyahu of undermining the ceasefire
agreement under pressure from his right-wing coalition partners.
Nevertheless,
Reuters later reported that Hamas's armed wing, the Izzadin al-Qassam
Brigades, said that it was unaware of any incidents or clashes in Gaza's
Rafah.
Izzat
al-Rishq, a leader in the Islamic Resistance Movement, said Hamas
remains committed to the agreement, while “the Zionist occupation
continues to violate the deal and fabricate flimsy pretexts to justify
its crimes.”
IDF chief Eyal Zamir, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Defense
Minister Israel Katz seen during a military briefing, in Tel Aviv,
Israel, June 30, 2025 (credit: MAAYAN TOAF/GPO)He
added that Netanyahu is attempting to “evade and disavow his
commitments” to international mediators and guarantors in order to
placate his “extremist terrorist coalition.”
National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir
called on Netanyahu to "order the IDF to fully resume fighting in the
Gaza Strip at full strength" shortly after reports of the Israeli strike
in Rafah surfaced. "The Nazi terrorist organization must be completely
destroyed - and preferably as soon as possible."
In addition, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich simply posted "War!" on X/Twitter.
US warns of imminent Hamas ceasefire violation
This development comes after the US State Department
said on Saturday night it had informed the nations guaranteeing the
Gaza ceasefire agreement of "credible reports" indicating "an imminent
ceasefire violation by Hamas against the people of Gaza.
"This
planned attack against Palestinian civilians would constitute a direct
and grave violation of the ceasefire agreement," the department said.
Hamas rejected the warning
on Sunday morning, claiming it was "fully aligned with Israel’s
misleading propaganda. Since the ceasefire took hold, Hamas has killed
at least 32 people in a wave of killings meant to target anti-Hamas
clans that had surged in the Strip.
Washington told guarantor countries of the Gaza deal that if the terror group attacks Palestinians, the United States will protect the latter and “preserve the integrity of the ceasefire.”
The United States told state guarantors of
the Gaza peace deal that there are “credible reports” that Hamas plans
an “imminent” attack on Gazan civilians, the U.S. State Department said
on Saturday.
“This planned attack against Palestinian
civilians would constitute a direct and grave violation of the ceasefire
agreement and undermine the significant progress achieved through
mediation efforts,” the Trump administration said. “The guarantors
demand Hamas uphold its obligations under the ceasefire terms.”
If the Hamas terror organization launches
the attack, “measures will be taken to protect the people of Gaza and
preserve the integrity of the ceasefire,” the State Department said.
“The United States and the other
guarantors remain resolute in our commitment to ensuring the safety of
civilians, maintaining calm on the ground and advancing peace and
prosperity for the people of Gaza and the region as a whole,” it said.
Joe Truzman, a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and editor of its Long War Journal, stated that he is unaware of a planned Hamas attack.
“The American warning is likely related to
Hamas’s crackdown on the Palestinian population since the ceasefire
went into effect,” he wrote. “I suspect that this is the U.S. telling
Hamas to put a leash on the Islamist group’s notorious Arrow Unit and
Radaa Force that have been executing and beating Palestinians for
alleged crimes.
“If not, the IDF will begin bombing these Hamas affiliates as it did in the war,” he said.
Israel’s Foreign Ministry on Sunday echoed
warnings from the U.S. administration that Hamas is terrorizing
Palestinian civilians as it seeks to regain control in Gaza. In a post
on X that included a video showing a brutal public beating, the
ministry described the scenes as “difficult viewing” and reiterated that
the recently brokered ceasefire must be fully upheld.
The statement added that Hamas “must go” and that Gaza should be demilitarized.
The site in Southern Lebanon was previously struck during the IDF's "Operation Northern Arrows" in September 2024.
A
view of a damaged vehicle near a cement factory following overnight
Israeli airstrikes in Ansar, Southern Lebanon, on Oct. 17, 2025. Photo
by Courtney Bonneau / Middle East Images / AFP via Getty Images.
The Israeli Air Force on Saturday killed a
Hezbollah terrorist attempting to rebuild the Iranian proxy’s
infrastructure in the Dounin area of Southern Lebanon.
This infrastructure was previously attacked during the weeklong “Operation Northern Arrows”
aerial offensive in September 2024. The terrorist was using engineering
equipment to try to rehabilitate the site, the Israel Defense Forces
noted in its statement.
צה"ל חיסל מחבל מארגון הטרור חיזבאללה שניסה לשקם תשתיות טרור של הארגון בדרום לבנון
מוקדם יותר היום, צה"ל בהובלת פיקוד הצפון, תקף וחיסל באמצעות כלי טיס של חיל האוויר, מחבל מארגון הטרור חיזבאללה.
המחבל ניסה לשקם בעזרת כלי הנדסי, תשתיות טרור שהותקפו במהלך מבצע "חיצי צפון", במרחב… pic.twitter.com/BFIB0VW1qz
“The terrorist’s activities constituted a
violation of the understandings between Israel and Lebanon,” the Israeli
military said, referring to the 2024 ceasefire. “The IDF will continue
to operate in order to remove any threat to the State of Israel.”
Israeli forces thwart weapons smuggling in southern Syria
Israeli forces thwarted an attempt to smuggle weapons
from Syria to Lebanon overnight Friday, arresting several suspects in
the Mount Hermon summit area, the military said on Saturday.
The confiscated weapons included grenades, pistols, anti-tank rockets and ammunition.
צפו בתיעוד: כוחות צה״ל סיכלו הברחת אמצעי לחימה במרחב כתר החרמון
במסגרת פעילות לילית של חטיבת ׳ההרים׳ (810) בשיתוף יחידה 504, נעצרו מספר חשודים שניסו להבריח אמצעי לחימה משטח סוריה לשטח לבנון במרחב כתר החרמון.
“IDF troops continue to be deployed in the
area in order to protect Israeli civilians and the residents of the
Golan Heights in particular,” the army stated.
More terror infrastructure struck in Southern Lebanon
Earlier on Friday, the IDF struck and
eliminated another Hezbollah terrorist attempting to rebuild the
organization’s military capabilities in the Kherbet Selem area in
Southern Lebanon.
Additionally, during IDF activity
overnight Thursday, a Hezbollah military structure that posed a threat
to the soldiers was dismantled in the Yaroun area.
On Thursday, the Israeli military struck Hezbollah infrastructure used for the organization’s rehabilitation attempts in the Mazraat Sinai area in Southern Lebanon.
Among the targets hit was a quarry where
Hezbollah produced cement to rebuild its assets and terrorist
infrastructure damaged during the “Swords of Iron” war, particularly in
the “Northern Arrows” campaign.
צה״ל תקף תשתיות טרור של ארגון הטרור חיזבאללה וארגון ״ירוק ללא גבולות״ בדרום לבנון
לפני זמן קצר, מטוסי קרב של חיל האוויר בהובלת פיקוד הצפון תקפו תשתיות טרור של ארגון הטרור חיזבאללה אשר שימשו לניסיונות שיקום הארגון, במרחב מזרעת סיני שבדרום לבנון.
“This infrastructure enabled Hezbollah’s
continuous activity and the reestablishment of its terrorist activity
under civilian disguise in Lebanon,” the IDF said.
Additionally, the IDF struck
infrastructure used by Green Without Borders, a Hezbollah-affiliated
organization that poses as an environmental NGO. “The organization had
used the site to conceal terrorist activity aimed at rebuilding
Hezbollah infrastructure in southern Lebanon, under a civilian guise,”
according to the IDF.
The IDF has revealed in the past that
Hezbollah uses Green Without Borders, a Lebanese NGO that claims to be
dedicated to environmental goals, as cover to gather intelligence in the
border area.
The U.S. government sanctioned
Green Without Borders on Aug. 16, 2023, with the U.S. Department of the
Treasury claiming that the organization’s outposts are manned by
Hezbollah terrorists and serve as cover for underground warehouses and
munitions storage tunnels.
“The Palestinian Authority ensures that it very much pays to slay,” said Palestinian Media Watch.
Families
and other well-wishers welcome the released Palestinian prisoners
returning from Israeli jails on Oct. 13, 2025 in Ramallah, Judea and
Samaria. Photo by Faiz Abu Rmeleh/Getty Images.
In the context of the U.S.-brokered
Israel-Hamas ceasefire that went into effect last week, Israel has
released 250 Palestinian terrorists who were serving at least one life
sentence for murder. Of those, 160 are now millionaires thanks to the
Palestinian Authority’s “pay-for-slay” program, having been paid over 1
million shekels during their imprisonment, according to Palestinian
Media Watch.
The 160 released terrorists collectively
received at least 229.5 million shekels ($70 million) from the P.A.,
according to PMW. The other 90 also received a significant sum.
PMW noted that the figure excludes additional stipends for family members, meaning the total payouts were likely far higher.
“The Palestinian Authority ensures that it very much pays to slay,” PMW stated.
“Any government that spends hundreds of
millions of dollars each year rewarding terrorists should be designated
for what it is—a terror organization,” PMW founder and director Itamar
Marcus told JNS.
“Yet the Palestinian Authority, which
openly funds and glorifies terrorists, continues to enjoy international
legitimacy and generous Western support,” he added.
“Shockingly, instead of cutting ties, the
European Union and many European countries partner with the P.A. by
paying its civil servants’ salaries—a scheme that frees up the P.A.’s
other funds to pay monthly salaries to imprisoned terrorists. This is
not legitimate foreign aid; it’s complicity in terror,” he told JNS.
Israel has released a total of 1,950
terrorists as part of the exchange for 20 Israeli hostages and 28
bodies, not all of which have been returned, a “blatant violation” of the agreement, according to Israel’s Defense Minister Israel Katz.
Maher Abu-Surur, who murdered Haim Nachmani, 29, a Shin Bet agent, in 1993.
Jihad A-Karim Azziz-Rom, who killed Yuri
Gushchin, 18, in 2001, and took part in the 2000 Ramallah lynching of
two Israeli soldiers.
Mohammad Imran, sentenced to 13 life terms for masterminding a 2002 Kiryat Arba ambush that killed 12 Israelis.
Imad Qawasmeh, serving 16 life sentences for the 2004 Beersheva bus bombings that killed 16 people.
Qassem Aref Khalil al-Asafreh, arrested in 2019 for the stabbing murder of yeshiva student Dvir Sorek, 18, in Gush Etzion.
In February, PMW posted
a list of the 734 terrorists released in an earlier ceasefire
agreement with Hamas, together with their “salaries”—the dollar amounts
each terrorist received from the P.A.’s so-called Martyrs’ Fund while
incarcerated.
In total, the terrorists received
$141,837,087, or more than half a billion shekels. Of those, 316, or
nearly half, received more than a million shekels each.
Dr. John R. Lott Jr. is an unusual researcher in these days of fake research. Head of the Crime Prevention Research Center,
Lott conducts meticulous research on issues of crime, guns and related
topics. What makes Lott unusual is he provides his data sets and
methodology on request. He doesn’t make things up. He's actually fully
transparent.
He drives Democrats crazy.
The honest among them—there are a few—will say they hate his
conclusions but can’t fault his methods. The rest wildly attack his
work, but are always long on heated, hyperbolic rhetoric and short on
valid argument.
In a recent Real Clear Politics article, Lott addresses the reality of American crime rates. He begins by harkening back to the Trump/Harris debate where Trump correctly asserted crime was increasing:
ABC moderator David Muir immediately fact-checked him, claiming, “President Trump, as you know, the FBI says overall violent crime is coming down in this country…”
Lott noted the usual Democrat media suspects backed Muir. The Wall Street Journal, Vox and Axios among them. NPR, who
Democrats are holding the government hostage to refund, headlined:
“Violent crime is dropping fast in the U.S. – even if Americans don’t
believe it.”
Their unbelief was well founded.
However, a new Bureau of Justice Statistics report, which includes data through 2024, shows that Trump was right during the debate when he said, “Crime here is up and through the roof.” The National Crime Victimization Survey shows violent crime surged 59%, with rape and sexual assault up 67%, robbery up 38%, and aggravated assault up 62%. That’s the largest four-year increase in the survey’s 52-year history.
It will come as no surprise to learn during Trump’s first term,
crime, particularly violent crime, decreased, but rose substantially
under Biden’s Handlers.
But how can anyone, with a straight face, claim crime dramatically
decreased under Biden? Lott points out that the government collects two
types of statistics: the FBI’s annual Uniform Crime Report and the
National Crime Victimization Survey done by the Bureau of Justice
Statistics. The former is dependent on law enforcement agencies
reporting to the FBI. The latter is a survey of about 240,000 Americans.
Unsurprisingly, in 2024, the media used FBI statistics.
That’s unsurprising because for longer than the Biden years, police
agencies stopped providing stats to the FBI or provided only sanitized
stats. This has been particularly true of big city, Democrat ruled
police agencies. Police chiefs and other high-ranking cops don’t get
those high-paying jobs without pleasing their Democrat masters. That
means statistics showing their no bail, no prosecution, no proactive
policing, utterly insane policies are eliminating crime. That’s their
narrative, and they’re stickin’ to it. Officers are forced to ignore
crimes or classify felonies as misdemeanors. Lott notes:
Before 2020, the FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics trends
generally moved in tandem. Since then, they’ve diverged sharply: The FBI
reports fewer crimes, while more Americans say they’ve been
victimized.
Why would arrests decline? The Ferguson effect has been a powerful
inhibitor. Allied with it has been the Defund the Police movement. Both
have taught officers that arresting violent criminals, particularly if
they’re black, is dangerous to their health and careers. Officers, with
good cause, believe they’re more likely to be prosecuted than criminals,
and any arrest, no matter how valid, could end their career. Lott notes
an additional problem:
Progressive prosecutors in cities like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles have
also made a habit of reducing felony charges. In Manhattan, for
example, the district attorney’s office downgraded felonies 60% of the
time – with 89% downgraded to misdemeanors and 11% to less serious
felonies. Chicago has labeled some murders as “death investigations”
rather than homicides.
Even red state police departments haven’t been reporting to the FBI
because they’ve come to distrust it. This is significant because the
statistics of our blue major cities can badly skew national results even
if every red state agency accurately reports. When they don’t, the
problem worsens and statistics more closely resemble Democrat narratives
rather than objective truth.
So, blue cities lie and resist any effort by President Trump to make
them safer, lest Democrat incompetence and malice be exposed in ways
that can’t be covered up. They were more than happy to have troops
ringing the Capitol after January 6, but not now.
And they’re never happy about Lott telling the truth about crime rates.
Become a subscriber and get our weekly, Friday newsletter with unique content from our editors. These essays alone are worth the cost of the subscription.
Mike McDaniel is a USAF veteran, classically trained musician,
Japanese and European fencer, life-long athlete, firearm instructor,
retired police officer and high school and college English teacher. He
is a published author and blogger. His home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.
Bolton, tariffs, the UN... Donald Trump just isn't tired of winning yet.
If you’re reading this today, you probably did not join the aged
hippies marching around with signs saying “No more Kings,”a multistate
demonstration whose sponsors are not yet fully disclosed. (I don’t think
Meghan and Harry are among them, though there are some foreign donors
involved.) But rest assured, you didn't miss much.
John Bolton: This Week in “No Man is Above the Law”
The biggest domestic story of the week in my view was the indictment
of former National Security Adviser John Bolton. If the 18-count
indictment handed down by a federal grand jury in Maryland where he
resides is proven, he demonstrated astonishing arrogance and disregard
for national security.
In a Department of Justice release
which accompanied the indictment, he is accused of eight counts of
“transmission of national defense information (NDI) and10 counts of
unlawful retention of NDI.
The indictment alleges that Bolton illegally transmitted NDI by using
personal email and messaging application accounts to send sensitive
documents classified as high as Top Secret. These documents revealed
intelligence about future attacks, foreign adversaries, and
foreign-policy relations.
The indictment also alleges that Bolton illegally retained NDI
documents within his home. These documents included intelligence on an
adversary’s leaders as well as information revealing sources and
collections used to obtain statements on a foreign adversary.
If convicted, the defendant faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in
prison for each count of unlawful retention of NDI and a maximum penalty
of 10 years in prison for each count of transmission of NDI. A federal
district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
This appears to be the result of an investigation conducted during the Biden administration that began in 2021 and was likely paused “when the Hur investigation began of Joe Biden keeping classified documents in his residence.”
“Bolton must have considered he was above the law. He “recklessly
sent classified White House info to uncleared family members so he'd
have it for his memoir, using unsecured personal email, yet locked up a
classified report exposing Russia-Trump intelligence fraud in a White
House safe so Trump couldn't see it ..”
It seems likely that his wife and daughter, whose accounts received some of this material, will be investigated as well.
His reckless and selfish handling of such highly-classified material
was not without national security consequences. It is alleged that one
of the AOL accounts which he used to transmit classified material to
people who lacked clearance to see it was hacked by Iran-linked actors.
The judge assigned to hear the case, which seems by all accounts to
be straightforward, is Theodore Chuang who was appointed by Obama.
In President Trump’s first term he blocked the travel ban and was
overruled by the Supreme Court. This term he issued a preliminary
injunction preventing the president and DOGE from dismantling USAID, an
order which was overturned on appeal.
Trimming the Voting Rights Act
This week the Supreme Court heard Louisiana v. Callais,
which raises the question whether Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights
Act allows states like Louisiana to create majority-minority
congressional districts. (There are about 19 such districts, largely
in Alabama and Georgia, and a ruling in Louisiana’s favor will
constitute a major blow to Democrats and a significant advantage to the
country as these majority-minority districts tend to create the most
radical members of Congress.) It’s not likely that any decision will be
rendered in time to affect the midterms. The court seemed unpersuaded by
Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s argument, and principal Deputy Solicitor
General Hashim Moopan’s retort was a classic put down: ”If these were
white democrats, there’s no reason to think they would have a second
district. If they were all white, we all agree they wouldn’t. That is
literally the definition of race subordinating traditional principles.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson again made herself the object of
ridicule comparing black voters to disabled persons needing special
access facilities.
Tariffs
On November 4, SCOTUS will hear on a fast-track basis two cases
challenging the president’s authority to impose tariffs under the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) He has by executive
order instituted two separate tariffs. One, called a “trafficking
tariff” targets Canada, Mexico, and China for failing to deal with
fentanyl traffic into the U.S. The second, “reciprocal tariff” targets
almost every country to make trade conditions fairer in their markets.
President Trump has said he may well attend that hearing himself. The
Administration just announced that it has a massive surplus of $198
Billion for the month of September ($544 Billion in receipts, $346
Billion in outlays. In the receipt column, it collected $30 billion in
tariffs.)
The UN tried and failed to pull a fast one
The UN tried to grab more money under the great green scam by setting
an international tax (receipts to it) on international shipping which
would have raised the cost of virtually everything to ameliorate the Sky
Dragon of climate change. Rubio and Michael Waltz killed this latest grift effort.
I can’t share the details on how @michaelgwaltz &@SecRubio have,
in just a few days, organized the greatest opposition to UN policy since
the Cold War and blocked this UN Carbon Tax.
I can say it was a knife fight to the end.
“I’ve been in this industry for 30 years and I’ve never seen anything
like it,” one shipping executive told me today. “You just don’t say NO
to these guys. It’s unheard of.”
It’s unclear who “these guys” are, but I suspect the European
families with shipping investments and net wealth that far exceeds
Elon’s.
Absolutely none of the maritime experts I interviewed early this week
thought the US could pull this off. Zero. Massive amounts of money, NGO
influence, diplomatic threat and media manipulation were behind
this…[snip]
“That Trump Truth Social post sent shockwaves through the building,”
one UN delegate in London told me. “NOBODY expected it. The Secretary
General @IMOSecGen looked like a deer in the headlights this morning.”
Incredible. Simply incredible work by team Trump and a massive blow
to the European deep state who planned to use this tax as a slush fund
to plug holes in US Aid funding for globalist NGOs.
It had been widely assumed the tax would be adopted during a summit
in London at the International Maritime Organization, the UN-backed body
that governs global shipping. But after four days of fraught
negotiations, countries agreed to delay a vote on whether to approve it
by 12 months.
The decision came after a vociferous US campaign, with President
Donald Trump calling it a “scam tax” and the State Department
threatening reprisals on countries supporting it.
I confess that I have not always given Secretary of State Marco Rubio all the credit he deserves. He has been astonishing.
Trump’s decisive 2024 victory exposed the irony of the left’s “No Kings” protests—an anti-democracy tantrum against the most democratic act of all: an election.
On November 5, 2024, Donald Trump won the United States presidential election
against Kamala Harris. It was a convincing win. Trump snagged victory
in the Electoral College, where the contest is officially decided, 312
to 226. He needed only 270 to prevail. He also won the popular vote (a
nice but unnecessary distinction), with 77,302,580 votes to 75,017,613, a
margin of almost 2 million votes.
I mention these well-known facts to underscore the black comedy of
the “No Kings” protests taking place across the country as I write.
According to several sources, some 2500 separate protests are planned.
Millions of people are expected to join in the fun. More than 200
left-wing groups, from the ACLU and Antifa to Indivisible,
have helped organize the events. Prominent Democrats from Bernie
Sanders to AOC to Gavin Newsom and Chuck Schumer are panting to attend
and proclaim their virtue and denounce the duly elected president of the
United States. Really, as Speaker of the House Mike Johnson observed, the “No Kings” rallies ought to be called “Hate America” rallies.
I live in deep-blue Fairfield County, Connecticut. In nearby
Westport, terminally disgruntled middle-to-late-aged citizens, joined by
clumps of unattractive GenZeers—Geezers and Zeers—regularly congregate
on a certain bridge to protest for or against whatever the central
committee has handed down as this week’s issue: climate change, fossil
fuels, Brett Kavanaugh, Israel, etc. Whatever the announced issue is,
they are there with their signs, their self-righteousness, their ire. I
am pretty sure I recognized some old-timers today from their stints
protesting against George W. Bush and the Iraq War. Naturally, the
crowds were out in force today to disrupt traffic and inform the world
that they abominate Donald Trump and all his works.
It was a large gathering. It was also depressingly pathetic. White
boomers, mostly, indulging their fraught emotional fatuousness. “Look at
us! Aren’t we special?” As one commentator observed, “Protests are meant to be the voices of the unheard. Yet these protests are the voices of those who never shut up.”
The ironies abound. The announced theme of this Soros-funded, Communist-Party-endorsed
network of protests is “No Kings.” But Donald Trump is not a king. He
is a democratically elected president. He obeys (and then appeals) every
outrageous injunction issued by hubristic district court judges to
stymie his agenda. But Trump is nonetheless excoriated by the media and
professional leftists for acting in a tyrannical, king-like (they never
say “regal”) way. Trump himself had fun with this absurdity. “I was very
concerned that a king was trying to take my place,” he wrote, “but thanks to your tireless efforts, I am STILL YOUR PRESIDENT!” If Trump were really a king, as another commentator on X observed, the government would be open now. Trump would simply decree it.
The word “democracy” is ever on the lips of the “No Kings”
ditto-heads. Lockstep capitulation to various anti-democratic
initiatives is ever in their hearts. When it became obvious that Joe
Biden was incapable of continuing his presidential campaign last summer,
the Dems simply parachuted in Kamala Harris as their candidate. She had
won no delegates. She went through no democratic process. The party
elders simply anointed her. Was that not very autocratic, even
monarchical, behavior?
Donald Trump was elected chiefly because he promised to do four
things: (1) seal the Southern border; (2) remove the millions of illegal
immigrants preying upon the country; (3) wage war upon the reign of
woke ideology; (4) jump-start and Americanize the moribund economy. Nota bene:
these are things he campaigned on. Things he was elected to do. This is
what people voted for. And that is precisely what the “No Kings” mob is
protesting.
Meanwhile, the “No Kings” automata were happy to acquiesce in Biden’s
neo-totalitarian deep-state rule. Censorship was okay. The Covid
shut-down was okay. The harassment and prosecution of one’s political
enemies was just what the doctor ordered. The effort to destroy Trump
was okay. It isn’t kings these people oppose; it is just the fact that their king lost his crown and their court was displaced.
Every time one of these embarrassing Greta-Thunberg-like outpourings
occurs, I wonder why the left seems to have a monopoly on this species
of outrage. Do such events advance their cause? Given the overwhelmingly
sympathetic treatment they receive from the propaganda press, perhaps
so. Should conservatives try to get in on the action?
To a large extent, as I noted in an essay for The New Criterion,
such behavior seems to go against the grain of the conservative spirit.
“By disposition,” I wrote, “conservatives are inclined to endorse
precedent. But since the dominant culture is liberal, conservatives must
make their peace with progressive policies or find themselves accused
of abandoning the central conservative principle of supporting
established precedent.”
This surreal situation was the result of an inexorable
process of one-way ratcheting. Progressive ideology makes continuous
inroads, gobbling up one institution and one consensus after the next.
Any occasional pushback is weathered as a temporary squall, after which
the work of expanding the progressive envelope proceeds apace. Last
year’s extreme outlier becomes this year’s settled opinion. To oppose
that is evidence not of conservative principle but of reactionary, even
(as we have lately been told) insurrectionary, stubbornness.
In a soon-to-be-published essay called “It is Time for Peaceful Protest Rallies and Vigils,” Tom Klingenstein
suggests that Trump-supporting conservatives should step out of their
natural quietism in order to “wake up Republicans and get them, not to
negotiate with the America-haters, but to propose solutions for crushing
them.” There is, I believe, a good deal to be said for this argument.
Thinking about the significance of Charlie Kirk’s assassination,
Klingenstein suggests that “Its lesson is not, as most Republicans
think, that we need more civil debate; rather, that we need less of it.
Kirk’s assassination affirms that civil discourse is only helpful up to a
point. You cannot debate with people who want to criminalize debate or
even kill you.”
Think about it. Conservatives are not as adept at protesting as
leftists. But, as Klingenstein notes, for at least the next three and a
half years, “we have a friendly administration in place and DEI is now
playing defense. It is more vulnerable to attack than in the past.”
There will always be room for debate. But when the other side endeavors
“by any means necessary” to censor, criminalize, and curtail debate,
there is also room for action.
China, by Thursday, could have a new leader. Or a new round of purges.
Tellingly, the most senior of
the nine officers axed on the 17th was General He Weidong, the
second-ranked vice chairman of the Commission and Xi Jinping's No. 1
loyalist in the PLA. The general had gained prominence as Xi's top
enforcer in the military.
Gen. He was not the only officer who backed Xi and has now been
taken out of the military's leadership ranks. Moreover, it is difficult
to identify any Xi adversary who was purged in the last 18 months.
It is unlikely, at a time Xi Jinping appears to be fighting for
political survival, that he would remove his most important supporter in
the military. It is far more probable that Xi has lost control of the
People's Liberation Army, especially because the removals strengthen
Gen. Zhang, Xi's adversary.
China, by Thursday, could have a new leader. Or a new round of purges.
Tellingly, the most senior of the nine officers removed on
October 17 from their posts in China's People's Liberation Army (PLA)
was General He Weidong, the second-ranked vice chairman of the Communist
Party's Central Military Commission and Xi Jinping's No. 1 loyalist in
the PLA. The general had gained prominence as Xi's top enforcer in the
military. Pictured: General He attends the opening ceremony of the
Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference in Beijing on March
4, 2025. (Photo by Pedro Pardo/AFP via Getty Images)
On October 17, China's Ministry of National Defense announced that
the Communist Party's Central Committee and Central Military Commission
had, after investigations, removed nine senior officers from their posts in the People's Liberation Army.
The stunning announcement occurred on the eve of the long-delayed
Fourth Plenum of the Party's 20th Central Committee, scheduled to start
tomorrow, October 20, and continue for four days. On the agenda are
crucial economic matters, including the country's 15th Five-Year Plan,
which covers the rest of the decade, 2026-2030.
Analysts are also looking for hints whether the Party, at the plenum, will announce changes in its leadership.
If Xi Jinping, the Party's general secretary and chairman of its
Central Military Commission, was responsible for the just-announced
removals of the flag officers, he will undoubtedly emerge from the
plenum as strong as ever, perhaps even stronger.
If, as is more likely, Xi's enemies arranged the removals, China will
almost certainly have a new leader soon. Xi's position would be
untenable.
Who, then, was responsible for the announced changes?
That conclusion, at least at first glance, seems logical. After all,
Xi has been powerful for a long time, so it is natural that journalists
ascribe every significant action in China to him. In fact, at one time
he had almost complete control over the People's Liberation Army, which
reports not to the Chinese state but to the Communist Party. Xi's major
reorganization of the PLA, conducted in the middle of last decade, and
his periodic "corruption" purges gave him the opportunity to install
loyalists.
"In most systems, repeated purges of senior military leaders would
trigger crisis or resistance," Craig Singleton of the Foundation for
Defense of Democracies told the Times. "Xi's ability to churn and
burn through top generals without sparking significant institutional
pushback reveals the strength, not fragility, of his rule."
Xi may be purging his own people, but that is not the most likely explanation. Beginning July 9, 2024, PLA Daily, the Chinese military's main propaganda organ, ran a series of articles praising "collective leadership," a clear criticism of Xi's demand for complete obedience.
These articles were written by those aligned with the No. 1-ranked
uniformed officer, Central Military Commission Vice Chairman Gen. Zhang
Youxia, and could not have appeared if Xi were in complete control of
the military. Zhang is known to be a political enemy of Xi.
Tellingly, the most senior of the nine officers axed on the 17th was
General He Weidong, the second-ranked vice chairman of the Commission
and Xi Jinping's No. 1 loyalist in the PLA. The general had gained
prominence as Xi's top enforcer in the military.
Gen. He was last seen
in public on March 11. On Friday, the Defense Ministry reported that he
had been expelled from the Party pending ratification at a plenary
session of the Central Committee, and his case had been transferred to a
military procuratorate "for review and prosecution."
On October 18, PLA Daily issued an editorial stating Gen. He and the eight others had been "disloyal." The publication indirectly referred to them as "hidden tumors."
Gen. He was not the only officer who backed Xi and has now been taken
out of the military's leadership ranks. Moreover, it is difficult to
identify any Xi adversary who was purged in the last 18 months.
"The continuation of the purges is hard to explain if Xi dominates
the political system because his supporters are now being purged,"
Charles Burton of the Prague-based Sinopsis think tank told this author
in July, after a previous round of firings. "Sometimes the simplest
explanations are the most credible. The simplest explanation is that
Xi's enemies—not Xi himself—removed Xi's loyalists."
The People's Liberation Army is the most important faction in the
Party. "Mao Zedong famously said, 'political power grows out of the
barrel of a gun,' a principle that may now be turned against Xi
Jinping," Burton, also a former Canadian diplomat in Beijing, remarked
on Friday.
"In the armed forces, dissent is growing amid his regime's economic
and social failures," Burton continued, referring to Xi. "The Fourth
Plenum poses a direct threat to his leadership. Even if he survives this
meeting, the internal pressures suggest his grip on power is more
fragile than ever."
Throughout this year, there have also been reports of continuing struggles in Communist Party civilian circles.
It is unlikely, at a time Xi Jinping appears to be fighting for
political survival, that he would remove his most important supporter in
the military. It is far more probable that Xi has lost control of the
People's Liberation Army, especially because the removals strengthen
Gen. Zhang, Xi's adversary.
"Party elders believe they cannot allow the leadership struggle to
continue beyond the Fourth Plenum," Blaine Holt, a retired U.S. Air
Force general who follows Chinese politics, told Gatestone after the
Defense Ministry's announcement.
China, by Thursday, could have a new leader. Or a new round of purges.
Either way, there will be blood on the floor, at least figuratively.
Masked intruders shouting “Zionists not welcome” disrupted a Pomona College October 7 memorial event featuring a survivor’s lecture.
Students take part in an
anti-Israel protest at Columbia University in New York City last month.
Many students demonstrating against Israel likely do not know basic
facts about the Mideast, the writer argues.(photo credit: JEENAH MOON/REUTERS)
A Pomona College
October 7 memorial event featuring a lecture by a massacre survivor was
disrupted by masked intruders on Wednesday, according to the Claremont College and local Hillel organization.
During the Hebrew calendar anniversary memorial of the October 7 massacre, four protesters, concealing their faces with keffiyehs, entered the Hart Room through a locked fire door and shouted, “Zionists not welcome here!”
Security personnel intervened, and according to Claremont Hillel, the protesters were quickly removed.
Pomona
President Gabrielle Starr and Vice President for Student Affairs and
Dean of Students Avis Hinkson said in a statement that the college was
investigating the incident. Footage was being reviewed to determine how
the protesters gained access to the event, said Starr and Hinkson, and
if the unidentified individuals were connected to the college, they
would be subjected to “every appropriate disciplinary action.”
“It
is both outrageous and cruel to interrupt a space where members of our
community come together to mourn. Antisemitic hate cannot be tolerated
here. Our community is better than this,” said the Pomona leaders.
“While this event was most deeply painful, and even frightening, for
those present last night, it should shake our community that anyone
would act so despicably on our campus.”
Students participate in a pro-Palestinian protest outside of the
Columbia University campus on November 15, 2023 in New York City.
(credit: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)Claremont
Hillel said that it was working with the Pomona administration to
prevent such an incident from occurring again and to ensure that Hillel
events remained “a safe and welcoming space for Jewish life on campus.”
'It was jarring and deeply upsetting'
“It
was jarring and deeply upsetting to have our time of mourning
interrupted in this way,” Hillel said in a statement. “What matters most
is that we are not intimidated. We are strong – and even stronger
together. Despite the interruption, we ended the night as we began: in
community, dancing together to celebrate the safe return of our hostages
and holding fast to hope.”
The event saw October 7 massacre survivor Yoni Viloga speak about his experiences, followed by a memorial service.
Maher has repeatedly criticized American activists he sees as excusing or overlooking Hamas abuses while focusing their ire on Israel.
Bill Maher arrives at the Vanity
Fair Oscars party after the 97th Academy Awards, in Beverly Hills,
California, US, March 2, 2025.(photo credit: REUTERS/DANNY MOLOSHOK)
TV talk show host Bill Maher questioned the recent silence of campus protestors over Gaza during Friday night’s episode of HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, pressing, “Where are the protesters?… Suddenly, the keffiyeh-wearing college kids are very quiet.”
Billionaire
entrepreneur Mark Cuban, appearing on the panel, responded: “Can’t be
found. Yeah, can’t be found anywhere.” Maher added that Hamas is
“shooting everybody,” calling out what he described as “the asymmetry of
what goes on.”
The exchange occurred on Friday, in a show which featured actor turned politician Arnold Schwarzenegger,
journalist Andrew Ross Sorkin, and Cuban. The episode is listed on HBO
Max and summarized by entertainment outlets covering the broadcast.
Criticizing pro-Palestinians who ignore Hamas's atrocities
Maher
has repeatedly criticized American activists he sees as excusing or
overlooking Hamas abuses while focusing their ire on Israel. In May, he
similarly challenged US liberals who expressed support for Hamas despite the group’s extremist ideology.
Friday’s remarks extended that critique to student protest movements that were highly visible last academic year.
Comedian
Bill Maher speaks during ceremonies unveiling his star on the Hollywood
Walk of Fame in Hollywood (credit: FRED PROUSER/REUTERS)Video
snippets of the segment circulated widely on social media overnight,
amplifying Maher’s question about the absence of demonstrations as
reports out of Gaza highlight internal repression and violence under Hamas’s rule.
Trump doesn't dance around the real issues. He demands that Tehran establish relations with Israel, end its project for long-range missiles, and scrap the military dimension of its nuclear program.
Trump made a flowing speech
at the Israeli parliament that was remarkable for its frankness in
showing the true picture of the situation to Israelis, combined with
asserting his unflinching commitment to their security.
[W]hat does peace, when poetic conceit is discarded, mean?
It means that a war has ended with one clear winner and one clear
loser, effacing a status quo that had bred the war. In the new status
quo that must be created, the winner ought to have the final word.
The second element in the method is to steer clear of flattering
the foe rather than placating him, which would persuade him that you are
acting out of weakness.
Obama's notorious speech in Cairo was one example of
self-defeating flattery. He tried to flatter the Muslim Brotherhood by
obliquely attacking President Hosni Mubarak. We all know what happened
next.
Trump, on the other hand, used the occasion to flex his American
muscles and send a clear message: We're powerful enough to make your
life difficult but also ready to invite you to the table, even if
offering you a side-chair. This was the message sent to the leadership
in Tehran, who missed the opportunity.
The third element of the method is to go for the jugular by
stating your maximum demand. In that vein, Trump made the establishment
of normal relations with Israel the sine qua non of joining his New
Middle East project.
Trump doesn't dance around the real issues. He demands that
Tehran establish relations with Israel, end its project for long-range
missiles, and scrap the military dimension of its nuclear program. In
exchange, he promises to ease sanctions on Iran with a view to ending
them if Tehran does its part of the deal. More importantly, perhaps, he
implicitly promises to prevent another Israeli attack on Iran if Tehran
accepts the deal on offer.
Pictured: US President Donald Trump addresses the Knesset,
Israel's parliament, on October 13, 2025 in Jerusalem. (Photo by Evelyn
Hockstein/Pool/Getty Images)
When President Donald Trump first launched his bid to stop the war in
Gaza, most observers expected another attempt at making the impossible
possible. After all, another ceasefire in exchange for the release of
Israeli hostages had been unveiled and unraveled a few months earlier.
Thus, the initial reaction from the global punditry was "Oh NO! Not
again!"
The consensus in the commentariat was that nothing short of Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's stated plan to "finish off Hamas and
bring home all the hostages" would extinguish the fires of this war.
That analysis seemed apt when Trump himself talked of a ceasefire in exchange for the return of hostages.
However, within just 24 hours that déjà vu scheme was upgraded to a
peace plan not only for Gaza but for the entire Middle East. A day later
that new version of déjà vu was again upgraded into what Donald the
Dealmaker baptized as the New Middle East.
Trump's political foes tried to dismiss his plan by claiming it was
just another ploy to earn him the Nobel Peace Prize that Barack Obama
had won by doing absolutely nothing.
But then the plan seemed to work: both Israel and Hamas accepted it.
Israel silenced its guns, and Hamas released all remaining living
hostages at one go. Even the Washington Post, not known for
serenading Trump, had to admit that the president had done something
good by stopping the carnage in Gaza and bringing closure to the
hostages' tragedy that was beginning to tear Israeli society apart.
Trump made a flowing speech at the Israeli parliament that was
remarkable for its frankness in showing the true picture of the
situation to Israelis, combined with asserting his unflinching
commitment to their security.
No American president had ever told Israelis what they owed to US
support -- he mentioned US planes as "gas stations in the sky" refueling
bombers attacking targets in Iran and the incredible variety of weapons
shipped from the US to ensure Israel held the upper hand against its
various enemies.
But that was not all.
The next move came in Sharm el-Sheikh, where 30 nations from across
the spectrum came together to approve a 20-point peace plan to end what
he saw as 100 or even 3,000 years of wars and conflicts in the region.
Regardless of how this remarkable venture might end, the consensus
reached was truly unexpected.
Is there a Trump method of dealing with foreign policy issues? I
think there is. Almost all US presidents since Harry Truman ended up
claiming a "doctrine" of their own. None of those doctrines had a major
impact on how history unfolded. Trump is unlikely to claim a frame in
that portrait gallery.
However, I think he can claim a method that might help others both in
the US and elsewhere. He must have learned that method during a long
career as a businessman and TV personality.
The first element in that method is to always put reality ahead of ideal.
Many US presidents -- from Richard Nixon to Joe Biden -- cast
themselves as peacemakers in the Middle East, always with good
intentions. But they always qualified the peace they preached with
adjectives as "just", "durable" or "equitable."
Bill Clinton spoke of "the peace of the brave." Sadly, however, the
brave, according to Homer, do not make peace; they fight to the death
like Hector. Obama mused about "an honorable peace," forgetting that
throwing in the towel in an unwinnable contest is the highest form of
honor.
Trump uses no such qualifiers, allowing everyone to understand that
peace means peace. And what does peace, when poetic conceit is
discarded, mean?
It means that a war has ended with one clear winner and one clear
loser, effacing a status quo that had bred the war. In the new status
quo that must be created, the winner ought to have the final word.
The second element in the method is to steer clear of flattering the
foe rather than placating him, which would persuade him that you are
acting out of weakness.
Obama's notorious speech in Cairo was one example of self-defeating
flattery. He tried to flatter the Muslim Brotherhood by obliquely
attacking President Hosni Mubarak. We all know what happened next.
Trump, on the other hand, used the occasion to flex his American
muscles and send a clear message: We're powerful enough to make your
life difficult but also ready to invite you to the table, even if
offering you a side-chair. This was the message sent to the leadership
in Tehran, who missed the opportunity.
The third element of the method is to go for the jugular by stating
your maximum demand. In that vein, Trump made the establishment of
normal relations with Israel the sine qua non of joining his New Middle
East project.
On Iran, Trump abandoned his predecessors' habit of ordering the hors
d'oeuvre in the hope of talking about the main course later. The hors
d'oeuvre they ordered was always about the grade up to which Iran could
enrich uranium for a bomb it says it will never build. On occasions, US
presidents also mused about "human rights" which could mean different
things to different people. For example Muhammad Javad Zarif, former
Iranian foreign minister, always reminded his American pal John Kerry
that Tehran had the highest form of human rights.
Trump doesn't dance around the real issues. He demands that Tehran
establish relations with Israel, end its project for long-range
missiles, and scrap the military dimension of its nuclear program. In
exchange, he promises to ease sanctions on Iran with a view to ending
them if Tehran does its part of the deal. More importantly, perhaps, he
implicitly promises to prevent another Israeli attack on Iran if Tehran
accepts the deal on offer.
The Trump method is also original because it circumvents formal
institutions without excluding them. The groundwork is done by members
of his family and his kitchen cabinet plus major donors to his campaign,
while the State Department, the Pentagon and the security services
provide logistical support.
The method reminds one of 1970s road-movies in which characters knew
where they wished to go but didn't stick to a detailed roadmap.
In the road-movie, travelers were waywarded and ended up somewhere else.
In this case, however, where they end up could be better than what it has been for the past two tragic years.
Gatestone Institute would like to thank the author for his kind
permission to reprint this article in slightly different form from Asharq Al-Awsat. He graciously serves as Chairman of Gatestone Europe.
Amir Taheri was the executive editor-in-chief of the daily Kayhan
in Iran from 1972 to 1979. He has worked at or written for innumerable
publications, published eleven books, and has been a columnist for Asharq Al-Awsat since 1987.
.jpg){kind=link}