Saturday, August 24, 2024

IDF launches pre-emptive strike on Hezbollah after identifying terrorist activity - Jerusalem Post Staff

 

by Jerusalem Post Staff

'A short while ago, the IDF identified the Hezbollah terrorist organization preparing to fire missiles and rockets toward Israeli territory.'

 

IAF jets strike weapons depot in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, August 19, 2024. (photo credit: screenshot via X/ section 27a copyright act)
IAF jets strike weapons depot in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, August 19, 2024.
(photo credit: screenshot via X/ section 27a copyright act)

The IDF identified Hezbollah preparing to fire missiles at Israel and, in response, began striking terror targets and launch sites in Lebanon, IDF spokesperson Daniel Hagari said on Sunday morning. 

According to Ynet, citing reports from Lebanon, 40 targets were struck by the Israeli air force. Ynet also stated that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant approved the preventative action against Hezbollah in the Kiryah on Saturday night.

This incident comes after the IDF said it was on high alert following assessments predicting potential responses from Hezbollah in the coming days. Sunday marks Ziyara Shabaniya, or Arbaeen, commemorating the fortieth day of Ashura. On this day, Shiites raise the red flag symbolizing revenge, and there is concern that Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah might seek to echo this Muslim symbol by launching an attack.

The IDF is aware of gatherings in several locations in Lebanon and fears that these large assemblies may be preparations for attacks against Israel. The Israeli assessment is that Hezbollah may strike if Hamas communicates a negative response to mediation proposals, signaling that negotiations are likely heading toward collapse rather than a breakthrough.

 Smoke and fire rise from a fire which broke out from missiles fired from Lebanon, outside Kibbutz Shamir, northern Israel, August 15, 2024 (credit: AYAL MARGOLIN/FLASH90)Enlrage image
Smoke and fire rise from a fire which broke out from missiles fired from Lebanon, outside Kibbutz Shamir, northern Israel, August 15, 2024 (credit: AYAL MARGOLIN/FLASH90)

Additionally, Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander Hossein Salami commented on the possible retaliation against Israel for the killing of Ismail Haniyeh, stating, "You will hear news soon," according to a report by Barak Ravid from Walla.

Readying for an attack

Following the IDF's pre-emptive strike Sunday morning, Daniel Hagari said that the IDF identified Hezbollah terrorist organization preparing to fire missiles and rockets toward Israeli territory.

"‌‏In a self-defense act to remove these threats, the IDF is striking terror targets in Lebanon, from which Hezbollah was planning to launch their attacks on Israeli civilians."

"Hezbollah will soon fire rockets, and possibly missiles and UAVs, towards Israeli territory.‌‏ From right next to the homes of Lebanese civilians in the South of Lebanon, we can see that Hezbollah is preparing to launch an extensive attack on Israel while endangering the Lebanese civilians."

‌‏He added that the Home Front Guidelines would be updated shortly.

He reiterated that Israel would not tolerate Hezbollah’s attacks on our civilians.


Jerusalem Post Staff

Source: https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-816158

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Only Award Qatar Deserves: Supporting Islamist Terrorism - Bassam Tawil

 

by Bassam Tawil

Based on the data compiled from multiple English, Arabic and French sources within the Middle East, Europe and the US, a team of American and Israeli investigators concluded in April that Qatar "operates not as an independent mediator as it claims, but benefits directly from the bloodshed and geopolitical fallout and unrest that result from its policies."

 

  • It is grotesque that Qatar should be recognized for its contributions to "maintaining national and regional security" in the Middle East given that it has long been openly supporting Islamist terrorist organizations and serving as a home and haven for the Hamas leadership.

  • "[H]istory will not forget that the Qatari Al-Jazeera was and still is a platform for leaders of terrorism.... Al-Jazeera is now playing the same tole in spreading speeches of the leader of the Al-Houthi terrorist militia." — General Secretariat of the Council of Senior [Islamic] Scholars in Saudi Arabia, March 27, 2018.

  • Not much has changed in Qatar since then.... Al-Jazeera, meanwhile, continues to serve as a mouthpiece of terrorist organizations, especially Hamas, whose leaders are frequently given a platform to promote terrorism. Saudi social media pundit Mesha'al Al-Khalid wrote: "The Al-Jazeera channel burnishes [the image] of the militias and terrorist organizations that have waded in Arab blood, describing them as 'Islamic resistance.' We seem to be facing a planned and organized project to burnish the image of Iran's agents and use the Palestinian issue as an excuse to direct accusations of heresy at anyone who exposes the proxies and agents loyal [to Iran]."

  • The only award Qatar is due is for encouraging Islamist terrorism and jeopardizing security and stability in the Middle East.

  • In 2017, Qatar and the US signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on combatting the financing of terrorism. The MoU ensures increased collaboration between US and Qatari military and intelligence forces, and even provides the ability for the U.S. Treasury Department to work closely with the Qatari Government to help monitor suspected terror-financing activities. Evidently, this agreement did not apply to Qatar's ties with Hamas. Nor did it prevent the October 7 massacres.

  • Based on the data compiled from multiple English, Arabic and French sources within the Middle East, Europe and the US, a team of American and Israeli investigators concluded in April that Qatar "operates not as an independent mediator as it claims, but benefits directly from the bloodshed and geopolitical fallout and unrest that result from its policies."

  • The "Doha-Gaza Alliance at all levels — financial, political, and military — has resulted in the current regional upheaval, the impact of which is being felt worldwide," the same investigators said in a confidential report, adding that Qatari funding and policies led directly to October 7. They noted that although the US has known about Qatar's malign activities for years, it has failed to strategically act on them. This has allowed Qatar to advance policies that are harmful to the interests of the US and its allies in the Middle East and beyond.

  • Instead of showering yet more money and awards on countries that seem to be plotting to bring America down, the US love-fest with Qatar and Iran should immediately be ended.

The only award Qatar is due is for encouraging Islamist terrorism and jeopardizing security and stability in the Middle East. Pictured: Qatar's then Emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani holds hands with then Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh during their visit to the Islamic University in the Gaza Strip on October 23, 2012. (Photo by Wissam Nassar/AFP via Getty Images)

CIA Director William Burns has awarded the head of the Qatari State Security Agency, Abdullah bin Mohammed Al-Khulaifi, the George Tenet Medal for his work on strengthening intelligence cooperation between the US and Qatar.

The ceremony took place amid diplomatic efforts by the US and Qatar to reach a hostage and ceasefire deal between Israel and the Iran-backed Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Burns and Al-Khulaifi are reportedly playing key roles in these efforts.

One of the main reasons for the award is Qatar's "efforts to release the [Israeli] hostages held by Hamas in Gaza, sources told the American Axios website. The source said Burns gave the award to his Qatari counterpart in "appreciation of his role in maintaining national and regional security, and the exceptional support he provided to the CIA in preserving the interests and security of the US and Qatar."

Another main reason for the award was "the cooperation between the CIA and Qatari intelligence in counterterrorism and the ability of the Qatari State Security Agency to prevent and foil threats and attacks in the Middle East, the sources added.

It is grotesque that Qatar should be recognized for its contributions to "maintaining national and regional security" in the Middle East given that it has long been openly supporting Islamist terrorist organizations and serving as a home and haven for the Hamas leadership.

In 2017, several Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Egypt, Yemen, Libya and Maldives cut ties with Qatar over concerns that the Gulf state supported Islamist extremism and terrorism. The Arab states were also worried about Qatar's close ties with Iran.

Saudi Arabia accused Qatar of financing extremists and "supporting the activities of Iranian-backed terrorist groups in the governorate of Qatif of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Kingdom of Bahrain."

Saudi Arabia said it severed diplomatic relations with Qatar and closed their shared borders "to protect its national security from the dangers of terrorism and extremism." The "decisive" measure was due to "gross violations committed by authorities in Qatar over the past years," a Saudi statement said.

Egypt accused Qatar of supporting "terrorism" and said all Egyptian ports and airports would be closed to Qatari vessels and planes.

Bahrain said it was cutting ties with Qatar over its insistence in "undermining the security and stability of Bahrain and meddling in its affairs."

Yemen's internationally recognized government accused Qatar of working with its enemies in the Iran-aligned Houthi militia. "Qatar's practices of dealing with the [Houthi] coup militia and supporting extremist groups became clear," the Yemeni government said. (In 2021, some of these Arab countries restored ties with Qatar thanks to mediation efforts by Kuwait).

The Arab states also expressed concern over the role of Qatar's Al-Jazeera TV network, which has long been serving as a mouthpiece for the Muslim Brotherhood organization and other Islamist terror groups, including Hamas.

In 2017, the Saudis closed Al-Jazeera's bureau in Riyadh and revoked its operating license. Jordan followed suit and closed the network's bureau in Amman. Egypt, which shut down Al-Jazeera in 2013, blocked access to the network's website in 2017, after accusing it of "terrorism" and "fake news." The United Arab Emirates and Bahrain also blocked Al-Jazeera's websites.

In 2018, the General Secretariat of the Council of Senior [Islamic] Scholars in Saudi Arabia said:

"[H]istory will not forget that the Qatari Al-Jazeera was and still is a platform for leaders of terrorism, as it used to exclusively broadcast speeches of Osama bin Laden, the leader of the terrorist Al-Qaeda and his successors, in addition to the speeches of terrorists who took up arms in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Al-Jazeera is now playing the same tole in spreading speeches of the leader of the Al-Houthi terrorist militia."

Not much has changed in Qatar since then. The Gulf state continues to host and support the leaders of Hamas, the group that carried out the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel. At least 1,200 Israelis were murdered, with many tortured, raped and burned alive during the attack, the worst crime against Jews since the Holocaust. Al-Jazeera, meanwhile, continues to serve as a mouthpiece of terrorist organizations, especially Hamas, whose leaders are frequently given a platform to promote terrorism. Saudi social media pundit Mesha'al Al-Khalid wrote:

"The Al-Jazeera channel burnishes [the image] of the militias and terrorist organizations that have waded in Arab blood, describing them as 'Islamic resistance.' We seem to be facing a planned and organized project to burnish the image of Iran's agents and use the Palestinian issue as an excuse to direct accusations of heresy at anyone who exposes the proxies and agents loyal [to Iran]."

Is it feasible that the CIA is ignorant of the fact that all these Arabs see Qatar and its Al-Jazeera network as a danger to Middle East security and stability? Or are the CIA and the Biden administration knowingly ignoring Qatar's damaging role and its alliance with Iran's mullahs as part of an ongoing effort to appease the regime in Tehran? The second option appears to be more realistic.

It is also grotesque that Qatar should be awarded for its "intelligence cooperation in counterterrorism and its ability to prevent and foil threats and attacks in the Middle East." If that were true, what did Qatar do to prevent the Hamas-led October 7 atrocities? Nothing.

As Middle East expert Seth Frantzman pointed out:

"Couldn't October 7 have been prevented since Hamas leaders lived in Doha? Shouldn't one of the pre-requisites with having them hosted by a US ally be that Hamas not carry out a genocidal massacre and lead to a massive regional war? Shouldn't the goal of having an ally host a terror grouping be having that group not create massive wars and massacres? Shouldn't Qatar have wanted Hamas not to create a massive war? Instead, after October 7 Qatar did not condemn the attack, and there were no repercussions for Hamas. It has the same status in Doha today as on October 6. There is not even one repercussion for what it [Hamas] did. Imagine all the suffering that could have been prevented over the past year.

"I wonder if anyone will learn from this and predicate these relationships on things like 'make sure the terror groups you host don't create massive wars that cause unprecedented suffering...'

"As far as I can tell, not even one in-depth report has been done on why wasn't October 7 prevented, focusing on the wider Middle East intel-sharing space. Maybe it's time to focus on it."

It is hard to believe that a police state such as Qatar did not know in advance of Hamas's intention to launch the October 7 attack on Israel. If Qatar's security agencies were not aware of the October 7 assault beforehand, it would have been a serious intelligence failure. For that alone, the Qataris most definitely do not deserve any special recognition. The only award Qatar is due is for encouraging Islamist terrorism and jeopardizing security and stability in the Middle East.

In 2017, Qatar and the US signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on combatting the financing of terrorism. The MoU ensures increased collaboration between US and Qatari military and intelligence forces, and even provides the ability for the U.S. Treasury Department to work closely with the Qatari Government to help monitor suspected terror-financing activities. Evidently, this agreement did not apply to Qatar's ties with Hamas. Nor did it prevent the October 7 massacres.

It is also grotesque to claim that Qatar has been supporting efforts to free the Israeli hostages held in the Gaza Strip. All Qatar would need to do to ensure the release of the hostages is to threaten to expel the Hamas leaders based in Doha. That has not happened.

The US, for its part, could threaten to leave Qatar's the Al-Udeid Air Base, the largest US military base in the Middle East, if Qatar does not exert pressure on the Hamas leadership to free the hostages. That, too, has not happened. In fact, on January 2, 2024, CNN disclosed that "The United States has quietly reached an agreement that extends its military presence at a sprawling base in Qatar for another 10 years." Why "quietly"? That is why the negotiations to end the war in the Gaza Strip have so far been unsuccessful. The rulers of Qatar apparently believe that they would never be safe if the US military were removed from their country. The emirate could be gone in a week.

Based on the data compiled from multiple English, Arabic and French sources within the Middle East, Europe and the US, a team of American and Israeli investigators concluded in April that Qatar "operates not as an independent mediator as it claims, but benefits directly from the bloodshed and geopolitical fallout and unrest that result from its policies."

Qatar is also evidently dedicated to supporting Islamic militant organizations, and was most likely using its spoof of a position as a "mediator" to make sure that its client, Hamas, would be allowed to rearm, regroup and attack Israel again.

The "Doha-Gaza Alliance at all levels — financial, political, and military — has resulted in the current regional upheaval, the impact of which is being felt worldwide," the same investigators said in a confidential report, adding that Qatari funding and policies led directly to October 7. They noted that although the US has known about Qatar's malign activities for years, it has failed to strategically act on them. This has allowed Qatar to advance policies that are harmful to the interests of the US and its allies in the Middle East and beyond.

According to the report, Qatar has been fully aware and supportive of Hamas military activities and strategy for more than a decade and revealed that most of the funding sent to Gaza by Qatar was assisting in "Hamas's terror infrastructure, weapons, and training."

"The negative impact of the Qatari-Muslim Brotherhood nexus to US policy interests," the report stated, "includes bloodshed, unrest, and instability in a wide range of locations, most immediately in the Middle East and Africa."

Instead of showering yet more money and awards on countries that seem to be plotting to bring America down, the US love-fest with Qatar and Iran should immediately be ended.


Bassam Tawill is a Muslim Arab based in the Middle East. The work of Bassam Tawil is made possible through the generous donation of a couple of donors who wished to remain anonymous. Gatestone is most grateful.

Source:https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20891/qatar-award-supporting-terrorism

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Confronting the Threat of Iran's Regime - Majid Rafizadeh

 

by Majid Rafizadeh

It is clearly time for America to go back to the policy of peace and prosperity in the Middle East and a pro-freedom agenda in American universities – as opposed to financing terrorists, their sponsors and especially Iran's virulently anti-Western and anti-American nuclear weapons program.

 

  • The exorbitantly lenient approach of the Biden-Harris administration has allowed Iran to reach unprecedented levels of power, influence and bellicosity.

  • Iran and Qatar have for decades been the source of all the instability in the region and much of it beyond.

  • Qatar has been poisoning American education with at least $6 billion in unreported "gifts and agreements," and Iran, while building forward bases in Cuba and Venezuela, is busy cyber-hacking the U.S. and trying to assassinate U.S. officials on American soil.

  • It is clearly time for America to go back to the policy of peace and prosperity in the Middle East and a pro-freedom agenda in American universities – as opposed to financing terrorists, their sponsors and especially Iran's virulently anti-Western and anti-American nuclear weapons program.

The exorbitantly lenient approach of the Biden-Harris administration has allowed Iran to reach unprecedented levels of power, influence and bellicosity, as it pursues its ultimate goals of annihilating Israel and disabling the United States. By contrast, President Ronald Reagan, did not hesitate to employ military force to send a powerful message to Iran's leaders, which successfully put a stop to their destructive activities. In 1988, Reagan launched Operation Praying Mantis, retaliating against Iran for its attack on a U.S. Navy ship, sent a strong message to Iran, and reduced the threat posed by Iranian naval forces in the Persian Gulf. Pictured: The USS Enterprise, which played a key role in Operation Praying Mantis, in the Persian Gulf on December 15, 1998. (U.S. Navy photo by Michael W. Pendergrass)

The policies of the Biden-Harris administration, including turning a blind eye to Iran's nuclear advancements, its destabilizing actions in the Middle East and the release of billions of dollars to the Iranian terror empire, have undoubtedly empowered Iran's regime, granting it the freedom to pursue its Islamist fundamentalist ambitions, including its ultimate goals of annihilating Israel and disabling the United States.

The exorbitantly lenient approach of the Biden-Harris administration has allowed Iran to reach unprecedented levels of power, influence and bellicosity. Iran is now openly providing military support to Russia in its ongoing war to conquer Ukraine. Iran's regime has also activated its proxies—Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Houthis — to launch attacks on Israel. Even more alarming is Iran's direct aggression towards Israel and the acceleration of its nuclear weapons program, scenarios that would have been unimaginable during previous administrations.

President Ronald Reagan, for instance, did not hesitate to employ military force to send a powerful message to Iran's leaders, which successfully put a stop to their destructive activities.

Operation Praying Mantis was a military action conducted by the US on April 18, 1988, in the Persian Gulf, in response to the mining of the U.S. Navy frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts by Iran during the Iran-Iraq War. The mining had taken place on April 14, 1988, causing damage to the frigate.

Reagan authorized Operation Praying Mantis to retaliate against Iran for the mining and to neutralize Iran's naval capabilities in the region. The operation, carried out by the U.S. Navy, marked the largest U.S. naval engagement since World War II. The primary targets were Iranian naval units, including warships and small boats, which were considered a threat to U.S. and international shipping in the Persian Gulf.

During the engagement, U.S. forces sank or severely damaged several Iranian naval vessels, including frigates, gunboats, and speedboats. Operation Praying Mantis aimed to demonstrate U.S. resolve in protecting its and its allies interests and maintaining freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf.

U.S. forces suffered no casualties. For the remainder of Reagan's term, there was not one further provocation from Iran.

The operation effectively achieved its objectives: it retaliated against Iran for its aggressive actions, delivering a strong message, significantly reduced the threat posed by Iranian naval forces in the region, and successfully deterred Iran from further malign action.

President Donald J. Trump took a similar firm stance against Iran by cutting off the financial lifelines of its regime. Through a "maximum pressure" policy, Trump imposed a series of economic sanctions that targeted Iran's primary source of income: its oil exports. Those sanctions led to a record low in Iran's oil sales and crippled its economy. The Iranian regime faced substantial economic challenges, both domestically and abroad, and was severely limited in its ability to finance its proxies and their military and terrorist operations.

Combining those strategies of military action and economic pressure offers a comprehensive approach to effectively stop or greatly reduce Iranian aggression. Military intervention would curb Iran's aggressive behavior, while economic sanctions would weaken its ability to fund its proxies abroad, as well as its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and hinder the country's ability to pursue nuclear weapons.

America's recent policies of appeasement have only served to embolden, strengthen and build up Iran and its terrorist agents.

It is perplexing why Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris chose destabilizing policies of empowering terrorist groups and their sponsors, Qatar and Iran, rather than continue Donald Trump's policy of peace and prosperity, which was in place and humming when the Biden-Harris administration took office in 2021.

Iran and Qatar have for decades been the source of all the instability in the region and much of it beyond.

Qatar has been poisoning American education with at least $6 billion in unreported "gifts and agreements," and Iran, while building forward bases in Cuba and Venezuela, is busy cyber-hacking the U.S. and trying to assassinate U.S. officials on American soil.

It is clearly time for America to go back to the policy of peace and prosperity in the Middle East and a pro-freedom agenda in American universities – as opposed to financing terrorists, their sponsors and especially Iran's virulently anti-Western and anti-American nuclear weapons program.


Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a business strategist and advisor, Harvard-educated scholar, political scientist, board member of Harvard International Review, and president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He has authored several books on Islam and US Foreign Policy. He can be reached at Dr.Rafizadeh@Post.Harvard.Edu

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20886/confronting-iran-threat

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

‘Strategic Vagueness’ is the Democrats’ New ‘Switcheroo’ - Thaddeus G. McCotter

 

by Thaddeus G. McCotter

“Strategic vagueness” is merely the latest entry in the left’s lexicon to gloss an ancient political tactic to make it appear novel and, for some reason, more digestible.

 


Obviously, the Democrats’ first “switcheroo” occurred when their party’s powerbrokers unceremoniously removed President Joe Biden as their presidential nominee with all the finesse of a posh D.C. restaurant owner prying a ravenous rat off their back-alley dumpster; and replaced him with Vice President Kamala Harris.

Now, the Democrat elite confronted an equally daunting task: transforming their anointed candidate into presidential timber in the eyes of the general public. Given the effort the Democrat establishment put into prepping the first “switcheroo,” making V.P. Harris palatable to Democrat voters was a foregone conclusion. Indeed, every percentage point the Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump, raced ahead of Mr. Biden in the rematch was another nail in the latter’s political grave.

It was the old political adage writ large: offer someone death (Mr. Biden) and they will accept torture (Ms. Harris). Propelled by the threat of Trump redux, Democrat voters not only refused to complain about being disregarded by their party’s power brokers for the third time in three presidential elections, they welcomed President Biden’s jettisoning and embraced the V.P. Harris selection.

In so doing, the Democrat establishment had succeeded in turning their party’s presidential primaries into non-binding referendums: a process whereby Democrat voters provide an advisory role that their ruling power brokers may or may not take into consideration when they determine who will be “our democracy’s” nominee and their running mate. Of course, the Democrat establishment’s ultimate aim of turning general election voters into a rubber stamp of their party’s handpicked candidate was yet to be a fait accompli. Thus, the crux: how to transform, by any means fair or foul, V.P. Harris from a less-than-winning radical hack into the glorious savior of our nation that only an American ingrate and/or insurrectionist would oppose?

Knowing time was short, the Democrat elite could not allow an unforced error by the less than facile rhetorician V.P. Harris to disrupt the creation of her cult of personality. Doubtless recalling how “Uncle Joe” Stalin said more with a menacing smile than a policy tract in Pravda, the leftist powerbrokers protected V.P. Harris from interactions with the press, no matter how compliant the reporter or the outlet. Instead, they ensconced her in ads, staged events, and public appearances, all of which were tightly structured and scripted with an emphasis on reimagining V.P. Harris’ personality and, consequently, avoiding the pesky problem that the Biden-Harris administration’s policies are an abject failure. The “same values, different vision” trope is a prime example of the Democrat elite’s stop-gap solution to this problem.

It has proven highly successful.

But the Democrat elite is cagey enough to recognize that this, alone, will not adequately feed the electoral kitty. Despite the efforts of leftist powerbrokers, independent voters still expect a candidate to at least pretend to hold press conferences and provide policy prescriptions for what ails America. As a result, sooner or later, the Democrat establishment’s handpicked, presumptive presidential nominee—even one who received not a single delegate when they pursued the Oval Office over four years ago—would have to step forward from behind her political Praetorian guard and face the music, albeit the fawning paeans of an adoring press.

So, how could the Democrat elite protect their presidential candidate from being beaned by a stray softball query?

The new “switcheroo”: “strategic vagueness.”

In her report concerning V.P. Harris’ economic speech by Forbes reporter Alison Durkee, one can limn the contours and motivations of the Democrats’ new switcheroo.

While the vice president has quickly garnered Democrats’ support and risen in the polls, Harris has released few concrete policy proposals in the first few weeks of her campaign—drawing some criticism as a result – with her speech Friday expected to [have been] the most substantive remarks she’s given on policy so far. Her focus on the economy comes as polling has repeatedly shown it’s the most important issue to voters in this election cycle, with the vice president hoping to attract support amid low approval ratings for Biden’s handling of the economy.

Thus, V.P. Harris’ conundrum rears its ugly head: how to appeal to voters who intensely disliked “Bidenomics,” which V.P. Harris not only supported but helped impose. Having mystically transcended her record regarding the Biden-Harris economy in the polls so far, the V.P. has no intention of allowing reality to diminish some in the electorate’s vain hope she can repair the economy she helped impair in the first place. Enter the new “switcheroo” of “strategic vagueness”:

Harris’ economic agenda released Friday didn’t go fully in depth about her proposals, which The New York Times reports is by design. The Times reported prior to Harris’ speech that the Harris campaign has adopted a “strategic vagueness” for her economic proposals, believing that being more of a “blank slate” will help ward off attacks and attract more support from business groups.

As if the woke corporate elite and Wall Street are not already on board with the Democrat Party and their nominee. In any event, “strategic vagueness” as the article notes is merely the latest entry in the left’s lexicon to gloss an ancient political tactic to make it appear novel and, for some reason, more digestible. Hence, the strategically vague, deliberately blank slate candidate, V.P Harris, expects their new switcheroo to capture four key objectives.

The first is to maintain or increase her distance from the policies of the Biden-Harris administration.

The second is to deceive, confuse, and confound voters; and allow them to read – accurately or otherwise – whatever they may glean in the nebulously expressed policy.

The third is to keep advancing a thin veneer of policy, all the while hoping to keep the campaign about personalities—namely, between the public’s view of the authentic former President Trump and the newly reimagined V.P. Harris.

And, the fourth is the most important, and where the ultimate ulterior aim of the new switcheroo manifests itself: because of the deliberate strategic vagueness of the Harris-Walz policy professions, if they win the election, the Democrats will claim the public voted for every radical policy the new administration implements.

It will be akin to how in 2020, candidate Biden professed to be a moderate; but as president Biden governed as a leftist zealot. Yet, if the Harris-Walz strategic vagueness proves successful, their new switcheroo of professing moderation in a campaign and imposing radicalism while in office will continue and exacerbate the disastrous policies of Bidenomics.

Some might argue that the Democrats’ new switcheroo is a temporary expedient due to V.P. Harris’ sudden usurpation of President Biden’s 2024 nomination and that more detailed policy proposals will follow for the American people to evaluate. They would be wrong. The Democrat elite’s cynicism is beyond question, as is their political practicality. The public revulsion over V.P. Harris’ price gouging statement will not impel a change of course to bring forth more detailed policy proposals. It will result in the Harris-Walz campaign being even more strategic vague, vacuous, and evasive—i.e., deceitful to the public.

Evidently, the leftist party purportedly saving “our democracy” believes detailed policy proposals are dangerous in the hands of voters. To leftist riven with cognitive dissonance and a compulsion to project their vices upon others, what is one more instance of strategic lying by omission in a presidential campaign that is nothing less than systemic deceit upon the public? “Our democracy”—translation: “our party”—must be saved by any means necessary!

There should be no vagueness about how dangerous it is to empower such duplicitous radicals to impose their new switcheroo.

***

An American Greatness contributor, the Hon. Thaddeus G. McCotter (M.C., Ret.) served Michigan’s 11th Congressional district from 2003-2012, and served as Chair of the Republican House Policy Committee. Not a lobbyist, he is a frequent public speaker and moderator for public policy seminars; and a Monday co-host of the “John Batchelor Radio Show,” among sundry media appearances.


Thaddeus G. McCotter

Source: https://amgreatness.com/2024/08/24/strategic-vagueness-is-the-democrats-new-switcheroo/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Trump and Vance Explain How They Will Handle a ‘World on Fire’ at North Carolina Rally - Fred Fleitz

 

by Fred Fleitz

Trump and Vance’s speeches at Asheboro contrast Trump’s strong mastery of the global threats facing this nation and Harris’s profound national security inexperience and incompetence.

 

During a huge rally in Asheboro, North Carolina on Wednesday, Donald Trump and J.D. Vance gave compelling speeches on the urgency of returning to Trump’s approach to U.S. national security to reverse the Biden/Harris administration’s disastrous foreign policy.

My AFPI colleague General Keith Kellogg and I were honored to attend the Trump/Vance national security speeches. (Kellogg also delivered a solid national security speech to warm up the crowd.) The Asheboro event was the first outdoor Trump rally since last month’s assassination attempt against the former president in Butler, PA. This rally had the high-security measures that should have been in place at the Butler rally.

The Trump/Vance presentations were especially significant because Vice President Harris and her campaign refuses to explain how a Harris administration would address growing global instability. There also has been an absence of any serious discussion of national security at this week’s Democratic National Convention.

An August 22 Wall Street Journal editorial raised concerns about this, noting that “Foreign policy is where the Vice President’s unknowns are most troubling… Yet Ms. Harris hasn’t explained her security views on much of anything… She hasn’t explained to the public what her core principles are, or even who she relies on for foreign policy advice.”

Trump and Vance did not pull their punches on the dire state of global security caused by the Biden/Harris administration or hold back on their policy solutions.

Trump said, “The world is on fire and Kamala and Biden have marched us to the brink of World War III,” noting the global conflicts and tensions that have occurred over the last three and a half years, including the war in Ukraine, increased threats from Iran, a surge in provocations against Taiwan from China, and increased tensions with North Korea.

Trump said the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan ordered by Biden was a “catastrophe” and noted that Harris bears responsibility for this decision because she “was the last person in the room with Biden when the two of them decided to pull the troops out of Afghanistan.” Trump condemned the Biden administration for leaving behind billions of dollars worth of U.S. weapons and military equipment and for abandoning the Bagram Airbase, which he says is now being operated by China.

The former president said the Biden/Harris Afghanistan catastrophe severely undermined global security and made it “open season on America and our allies.”  He said he would have handled a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan more responsibly and without any U.S. troops losing their lives.  If he wins the presidency, Trump said he will ask for the resignation of “every single senior military official who touched the Afghanistan disaster.”

The Biden/Harris policy failures on Iran were also a focus of the Trump and Vance speeches. Trump said that Iran was broke because of his policies but is $250 billion richer today because of the Biden/Vance administration ignoring the threat from Iran. Trump said the administration’s failed Iran policy enabled its support of terrorism, including the Hamas terrorist attack of October 7, 2023. Trump also faulted the Biden/Harris administration’s offer to exchange Iranian prisoners for Americans held hostage in Iran, plus a $6 billion payment to Iran. Trump said deals like this encourage more hostage-taking and noted that his administration freed dozens of hostages without paying anything to the nations that were holding them.

Trump spoke at length about the war in Ukraine, attributing it to the weak leadership of Biden and Harris. He said Russian President Putin respected him and Russia would never have invaded Ukraine if he was president. Trump indicated that stopping the Ukraine War would be one of his priorities as president and he hopes to end the war as president-elect before he is inaugurated.

His willingness to talk to the heads of state of America’s enemies is an important element of his approach to national security, telling the North Carolina crowd, “It’s good to get along with these countries…I talked this world out of a lot of wars with telephone calls. I don’t have to send in the troops.”

Trump added that he rebuilt the U.S. military and restored weapons and ammunition arsenals.  He criticized the Biden/Harris administration for depleting these arsenals to send vital American weapons to Ukraine.

The surge in illegal immigrants coming across America’s southern border was a major theme of the Trump and Vance speeches. Vance condemned Vice President Harris for failing to protect the U.S. southern border as Biden’s “border czar” because she wants to give illegal aliens the right to vote. Trump stressed that this is allowing criminals and terrorists to enter the U.S. and that we will not have a country if Harris is elected because she will do nothing to secure the border.

The overall theme of the Trump and Vance speeches was the urgent need to reestablish American strength and deterrence, which has deteriorated due to the weak foreign policy of the Biden/Harris administration. Trump said in his speech,

Four years ago, our country was strong and respected like never before. Our allies admired us, our enemies feared us, because everyone knew that. As an American President, I was all about putting America first. That’s true. Under my leadership, we rebuilt the United States military, created Space Force, and we made our allies pay their fair share and their fair dues.

Trump emphasized that his national security policies kept U.S. troops out of new wars and brought about a period of peace that was squandered due to President Biden’s incompetence and poor leadership. Trump promised to remedy this situation if reelected saying, “Starting the moment I lift my hand from the Bible after taking the Oval Office, I will move to restore America to maximum power and restore the world to peace.”

Overall, the Trump and Vance speeches on national security at the Asheboro rally did not say anything new. They repeated statements Trump has made many times before about how he views the world and his approach to U.S. national security. However, these speeches were still important because they set a contrast between Trump’s strong mastery of the global threats facing this nation and how to deal with them and Harris’s profound national security inexperience and incompetence.

With speeches like this, Trump and Vance are forcing American voters to choose who they want as their next president to defend our national security and deal with autocratic leaders like Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un, Ali Hosseini Khamenei, and others—and to recognize that Trump is clearly the best choice.

***


Fred Fleitz is previously served as National Security Council chief of staff, CIA analyst, and a House Intelligence Committee staff member.

Source: https://amgreatness.com/2024/08/23/trump-and-vance-explain-how-they-will-handle-a-world-on-fire-at-north-carolina-rally/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Greek oil tanker set on fire by the Houthis in the Red Sea - Charlotte Hazard

 

by Charlotte Hazard

According to reports, this is the third ship the Iran-backed Houthi terrorists have destroyed in the Red Sea. The ship was carrying 150,000 tons of crude oil.

 

Houthi rebels set fire to a Greek oil tanker in the Red Sea off the coast of Yemen, footage shows. 

The video shows the tanker, called the Sounion, burning as the Iran-backed terrorists chanted, and mocked America. 

“God is the greatest; death to America; death to Israel; curse the Jews; victory to Islam,” they chanted, according to the New York Post.

The terrorists first came on small boats, approaching the tanker on Wednesday, and firing with guns and hitting the ship with four projectiles, according to the UK military’s Maritime Trade Operations Center.

On Friday, the ship was rocked by three explosions, though the source of those is unclear, according to the outlet. 

According to reports, this is the third ship the Houthis have destroyed in the Red Sea, after sinking two others. 

The ship was carrying 150,000 tons of crude oil, threatening a possible environmental disaster.

Representative Mike Waltz (R-Florida) posted the video of the explosion on X — and called it a U.S. foreign policy failure. 

“This is what Biden/Harris policy of appeasement towards Iran gets you… Houthi terrorists blowing 150,000 tons of crude oil into the Red sea,” Waltz said.


Charlotte Hazard

Source: https://justthenews.com/events/greek-oil-tanker-set-fire-houthis-red-sea

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Trump unveils two initiatives he would start as president if elected in November - Misty Severi

 

by Misty Severi

The two projects are in honor of former Independent presidential contender Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who dropped his own bid for the White House earlier Friday and endorsed Trump.

 

Former President Donald Trump on Friday promised to start two new initiatives and commissions if he's elected back to the White House this November.

The two projects are in honor of former independent presidential contender Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who dropped his own bid for the White House earlier Friday and endorsed Trump. Kennedy also joined Trump at his Arizona rally.

One project will be a presidential commission on assassination attempts, which will be tasked with reviewing and releasing the remaining documents on the assassination of the late-President John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s uncle.

The commission would also investigate the assassination attempt on Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, last month. 

"I have never had more people ask me, please, sir, release the documents on the Kennedy assassination, and we're going to do that," Trump said at the rally.

Trump said the other project will be a panel of experts that will work with Kennedy to investigate the cause of an increase in chronic health problems and childhood diseases. 

"I want to salute Bobby's decades of work as an advocate for the health of our families and our children," Trump said when announcing the initiative. "Nobody's done more. Millions and millions of Americans who want clean water and a healthy nation have concerns about toxins in our environment and pesticides in our food."

Trump claimed some of the health concerns facing children in the U.S. are a rise in autoimmune diseases, obesity, and autism. 

"We want every child in America to grow up and to live a long and healthy life," he added.


Misty Severi is an evening news reporter for Just The News. You can follow her on X for more coverage.

Source: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/trump-unveils-two-initiatives-he-would-start-president-if-elected

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Majority of Americans expect large numbers of illegal aliens to unlawfully vote this election: Poll - Misty Severi

 

by Misty Severi

The poll found that 54% of respondents said they believe illegal immigrants will vote in November, and 75% of respondents said they do not support allowing illegal immigrants to vote in federal elections.

 

The majority of respondents in a poll published Friday said they believe a large amount of people who are in the country illegally will actually vote in November's general election.

The poll, conducted by the Napolitan News Service, found that 54% of respondents said they believe illegal immigrants will vote in November, and 75% of respondents said they do not support allowing illegal immigrants to vote in federal elections.

An even larger percentage of the survey takers (87%) support requiring voter ID in order to vote in federal elections, according to the poll.

The poll comes as Republicans in Congress attempt to push through the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which requires voters to prove their citizenship in the United States in order to vote in federal elections. The bill has passed the House, but not the Senate.

The survey polled 1,000 Registered Voters on Aug. 20, and 21. It has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points.


Misty Severi is an evening news reporter for Just the News. You can follow her on X for more coverage.

Source: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/polling/majority-americans-expect-large-number-illegal-immigrants-will-vote

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Hezbollah likely to strike if Hamas rejects compromise deal, Israel believes - Anna Barsky

 

by Anna Barsky

"It's important for you to know that we are facing a significant week with ongoing

 

Supporters listen to the speech of Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, during a commemorative ceremony marking the first week since the killing of Hezbollah's top commander Fuad Shukr, in the southern suburbs of Beirut, Lebanon August 6, 2024. (photo credit: REUTERS/Alkis Konstantinidis TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY)
Supporters listen to the speech of Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, during a commemorative ceremony marking the first week since the killing of Hezbollah's top commander Fuad Shukr, in the southern suburbs of Beirut, Lebanon August 6, 2024.
(photo credit: REUTERS/Alkis Konstantinidis TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY)

The leading assessment in Israel is that Hezbollah plans to launch an attack against Israel the moment Hamas delivers a negative response to the mediators concerning the compromise proposal, as it becomes clear that the talks are heading toward a breakdown rather than a breakthrough.

IDF spokesperson Daniel Hagari said on Saturday: "IDF forces continue [operating] decisively and forcefully against the terrorist organization Hezbollah. In recent days, we have struck about 70 terror targets, including numerous weapon storage sites aimed at Israel, and eliminated over 20 terrorists, including senior operatives. We have damaged Hezbollah’s rocket infrastructure."

He added: "It's important for me to explain our operational approach. We conduct systematic and orderly attacks targeting Hezbollah's capabilities and fighters. In defense, we coordinate, while closing loops on terrorists who have fired or emerged from suspicious areas. We target bases and terror sites, while Hezbollah attacks civilian areas and citizens. We have a wide range of offensive plans and will act according to political decisions."

Hagari continued: "I want to address the residents of the North. I know you have been enduring ten challenging months under the threat of attacks and fires. We will not rest until you can return to your homes safely."

 IDF Spokesperson Daniel Hagari seen in the Northern Command, November 28, 2023 (credit: David Cohen/Flash90)Enlrage image
IDF Spokesperson Daniel Hagari seen in the Northern Command, November 28, 2023 (credit: David Cohen/Flash90)

At the end of his statement, the IDF spokesperson emphasized: "It's important for you to know that we are facing a significant week with ongoing negotiations in Cairo, fighting in Gaza, and border conflicts in the North. Our readiness for attack and defense is very high, and we will continue to work to remove threats and fight our enemies. The public must remain vigilant and alert, as you have been so far. We will provide immediate updates on any developments."

Hamas remains passive in ceasefire talks

"We are responding with very high intensity. I described our recent attacks, targeting about 70 significant Hezbollah positions and over 20 terrorists, including senior figures. We will continue to act decisively against threats to Israeli civilians."

Negotiations for a ceasefire and a hostage deal are set to resume this weekend. A senior Hamas official confirmed that the group’s representatives will travel to Cairo to hear the outcomes but will not actively participate in talks. Hamas, which did not take part in the previous round of talks in Doha, Qatar, is sending a delegation to Cairo to "listen to the results of the negotiations" involving officials from the US, Israel, Egypt, and Qatar, according to senior Hamas member Izzat al-Rishq.

Hamas is expected to remain passive in the discussions, symbolically signaling openness to negotiations while asserting that Israel should adjust its stance.

The delegation will meet with senior Egyptian intelligence officials to be updated on the ongoing ceasefire talks but will not directly engage in negotiations, an additional Hamas official told French news outlet AFP. Hamas initially stated it would not participate in this round of negotiations that began last week in Doha. The group insists that Israel withdraw from Gaza, including the Philadelphi Corridor near the Egyptian border.


Anna Barsky

Source: https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-816146

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Harris dodged substantive policy proposals at DNC, despite Clinton calling election ‘job interview’ - Natalia Mittelstadt and Kevin Killough

 

by Natalia Mittelstadt and Kevin Killough

“A presidential election is a job interview for the greatest job in the world,” former President Bill Clinton said. RFK, Jr. didn't mince words, calling the convention "Only smoke and mirrors and balloons in a highly-produced Chicago circus."

 

In Vice President Kamala Harris’s Democratic presidential nominee acceptance speech, she failed to answer key "job interview" questions asked by a recent Democratic president regarding whether the next president will be moving the country forward or backward on policy issues.

The day before Harris gave her acceptance speech, former President Bill Clinton noted that the race to becoming president requires candidates to decide whether they will continue the prior administration’s policies or create their own.

“A presidential election is a job interview for the greatest job in the world,” Clinton said Wednesday. “What questions will you ask—because you’re doing the hiring. Will a president take us forward or backward? Will she give our kids a brighter future? Will she make us more united or more divided? Will we all feel heard, seen, and valued, regardless of who we voted for?”

On Thursday night, Harris appeared to be light on specific policies.

Regarding China, Harris said, “I will make sure that: We lead the world into the future on space and Artificial Intelligence. That America—not China—wins the competition for the 21st century. And that we strengthen—not abdicate—our global leadership.”

Bobby Charles, AMAC spokesperson and former Assistant Secretary of State, told the “John Solomon Reports” podcast on Friday that regarding national security, Harris didn’t “mention China. She blows past critical issues that are affecting everybody in the world with these sort of high-minded nothingnesses. It's like dandelion fluff. It's like, somehow, we're gonna make the world work with we're all gonna say Kumbaya, and make the world work in a way that allow us all to giggle the way she does. No, It doesn't work that way. The world is a ruthless, mean place.”

Meanwhile, House Oversight Chairman James Comer sent a letter to National Security Council Advisor Jake Sullivan on Tuesday regarding the Chinese Communist Party’s influence in the U.S.

He argued that the Biden administration is not taking the threat seriously enough, even as U.S. generals, intelligence officials, and national security experts raise the alarm about China’s efforts to undermine, steal from, and influence the U.S. here at home.

On climate, Harris said Thursday, “In this election, many other fundamental freedoms are at stake. The freedom to live safe from gun violence—in our schools, communities, and places of worship. The freedom to love who you love openly and with pride. The freedom to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis.”

President Joe Biden campaigned on a promise to “end fossil fuel.” During the Biden-Harris administration, the U.S. produced more oil than any nation ever has, but experts say the impacts of their policies on production won’t likely show up until the next four years. Biden, along with his Democratic allies, has taken some 250 actions that make it harder to produce oil and gas. These include canceling the Keystone XL pipeline on his first day in office, canceling oil and gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, passing stringent methane reduction regulations, and pausing liquified natural gas export permits.

Harris was one of the original sponsors of the "Green New Deal." Originally introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., the Green New Deal presented an ambitious Democratic plan to transform the entire U.S. economy through a centrally planned transition to an economy powered almost entirely without fossil fuels.

This included net-zero emissions by 2050, EV mandates, high speed rail buildouts to decarbonize transportation, and “building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food.” In March 2019, the measure failed in the Senate 57-0. 

Regarding the economy, Harris said she “will create what I call an opportunity economy. An opportunity economy where everyone has a chance to compete and a chance to succeed. Whether you live in a rural area, small town, or big city. As President, I will bring together: Labor and workers, Small business owners and entrepreneurs, and American companies. To create jobs. Grow our economy. And lower the cost of everyday needs. Like health care. Housing. And groceries. We will: Provide access to capital for small business owners, entrepreneurs, and founders. We will end America’s housing shortage. And protect Social Security and Medicare.”

Harris has yet to explain – either in her speech or in any policy paper – how any of these generalized goals would be accomplished.

Charles quipped on Friday’s podcast that “The reality is that this ticket, Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, is an empty ticket. It's a dangerously empty ticket.”

He explained that people “see it because it's affecting their economy, these economic ideas are pseudo-Soviet. I mean, at the very best, wage and price controls were offered in by Nixon and by Carter in a very limited way, and they created long gas lines.”

“At their worst, they are implemented the way the Soviets did,” Charles added. “So her economic policies – spend more, tax you, make your dollars worth less, make the increased interest on your credit card grow, make the federal debt grow – have no accountability. It's a dead-end economic policy.”

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told the “John Solomon Reports” podcast on Friday that he doesn’t believe Harris’ acceptance speech had much impact in swaying voters.

“The people who are hardcore anti-Trump and hardcore Democrat are going to stay with her, but she didn't give anybody a reason to go out and to think that their future will be dramatically better under Kamala Harris,” Gingrich said.

“And of course, her whole campaign is based on a lie. I mean, she would like you to believe that she was never vice president, that she didn't serve with Joe Biden, that she, you know, she talks about Day One, well, she's at day, I think, 1,311. And she doesn't want you to think about that. So I think in that sense, she is going into the general election carrying a lot of ammunition which could go off and hurt her, not hurt Trump,” Gingrich said.

Daily Signal columnist Tony Kinnitt told the “John Solomon Reports” podcast in an episode to be aired Sunday that Harris’s speech “was just very emotional, because there is not really a policy-versus-policy approach, as far as the campaigns are concerned, for this election.”

“Are you the person who's proud of what you're doing now, or are you saying it needs to be rebuilt from the ground up?” Kinnitt asked. “And I think that's why she couldn't get substantive, because the second she gets substantive, she has to apply herself to one of those two characteristics, and either one of those is desperately toxic for her campaign.”

Harris’s lack of press conferences and interviews has also been an issue.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., in his speech Friday where he suspended his campaign, noted that Harris hasn’t “appeared in a single interview or an unscripted encounter with voters for 35 days.”

“This is profoundly undemocratic,” he continued. “How are people to choose when they don't know whom they are choosing, and how can this look to the rest of the world?”

Kennedy later noted, “Instead of showing us her substance and character, the DNC and its media organs engineered a surge of popularity for Vice President Harris based upon nothing. No policies, no interviews, no debates. Only smoke and mirrors and balloons in a highly-produced Chicago circus.”


Natalia Mittelstadt and Kevin Killough

Source: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/harris-avoided-substantive-policy-proposals-during-speech-despite

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

ICC prosecutor calls for ‘urgent’ ruling against Netanyahu, Gallant - JNS

 

by JNS

“It is settled law that the court has jurisdiction in this situation,” claimed Karim Khan.

 

International Criminal Court Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan announces he applied for arrest warrants for Israeli leaders, May 20, 2024. Credit: ICC.
International Criminal Court Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan announces he applied for arrest warrants for Israeli leaders, May 20, 2024. Credit: ICC.

The International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor on Friday called on judges to “urgently” rule on his request for arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over their involvement in prosecuting the war against the Hamas terrorist group in the Gaza Strip.

“It is settled law that the court has jurisdiction in this situation,” Karim Khan wrote in a legal brief.

He called on the judges on the pretrial panel to “urgently render its decisions” on the requests he filed in May.

Khan’s brief came in response to legal arguments filed by dozens of countries, academics and rights groups either rejecting or supporting the court’s jurisdiction to issue arrest warrants in this case.

Among the many on Israel’s side who submitted briefs were Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), UK Lawyers for Israel, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and NGO Monitor.

Those opposed ranged from former U.N. Special Rapporteur Richard Falk to Al-Haq and Addameer, two of six Palestinian NGOs designated as terrorist organizations by Israel.

On May 20, Khan requested warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant for alleged war crimes. He lumped the two Israelis together with then-Hamas chief in Gaza Yahya Sinwar, “military” leader Mohammed Deif and political head Ismail Haniyeh. The latter two have since been assassinated.

The ICC has no jurisdiction in Israel as Jerusalem is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, which established the court. But in a legalistic sleight of hand, the court claimed jurisdiction by accepting the “State of Palestine” as a signatory in 2015, even though no such state exists.

The 124 countries that are signatories to the Rome Convention are obligated to act on any arrest warrant it issues, raising the possibility that Netanyahu and Gallant could be placed under arrest while visiting these places.

Many of the amicus briefs focused on whether the ICC, if claiming jurisdiction, would have the power to issue warrants for Israeli leaders due to a provision in the 1993 Oslo Accords. As part of the deal, the Palestinians agreed that they do not have criminal jurisdiction over Israeli nationals.

Nevertheless, Khan wrote that the argument the peace deal could nullify the court’s jurisdiction was “without merit.”

He called the position “inconsistent with the proper interpretation and application” of an article in the Rome Statute, and contended it “misunderstands basic concepts of jurisdiction under international law, including under the law of occupation, and how these concepts relate to the interpretation and application of the Statute.”

Meanwhile, 84% of Israelis believe that the ICC is a political body, not a legal one, according to a recent JNS poll. Twelve percent disagreed, while 5% of respondents had no opinion.

Respondents were asked a series of questions regarding their assessment of the ICC and how best to handle its actions against Israel, its security forces and its political leaders.


JNS

Source:https://www.jns.org/icc-prosecutor-calls-for-urgent-ruling-against-netanyahu-gallant/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Thursday, August 22, 2024

The Garbage That Starts Off the Democratic Party Platform - Robert Spencer

 

by Robert Spencer

If you still think it’s hyperbole and hysteria to say that the Left hates America . . .

 


[Order a copy of Robert Spencer’s forthcoming book, Muhammad: A Critical Biographyby clicking here.]

If you still think it’s hyperbole and hysteria to say that the left hates America, check out the 2024 Democratic Party Platform.

“Our nation,” the platform states, “is at an inflection point. What kind of America will we be? A land of more freedom, or less freedom? More rights or fewer?” That’s actually not a bad place to start a statement of basic principles, for this election is indeed shaping up to be a choice between more freedom or less, albeit not in the way that the Democratic party would have you believe.

This “inflection point” statement, however, is not the first item in the Democratic Party Platform. The first thing you see when you start reading the Democratic Party Platform, the very first thing that the Democrats want you to know, is that America is on stolen land. The message is clear: Go home, white colonizer!

The first item in the 2024 platform of America’s majority party is the “Democratic National Convention Land Acknowledgement.” Land acknowledgments, which are basically statements of colonialist guilt and assertions that some particular parcel of land actually belongs to someone other than those who occupy it and own the deed, became trendy a few years ago, as our Age of Absurdity reached new heights of ridiculousness. They’re common, as you’d expect, on the websites of colleges and universities. The platform’s land acknowledgment is a trifle more gingerly stated than such things usually are, but its upshot is nonetheless unmistakable.

“The Democratic National Committee,” the land acknowledgment begins, “wishes to acknowledge that we gather together to state our values on lands that have been stewarded through many centuries by the ancestors and descendants of Tribal Nations who have been here since time immemorial.”

This is carefully worded. Instead of saying outright that the land belongs to the Tribal Nations, or was taken from them, as most land acknowledgments do, the platform says that the Democratic National Convention is taking place on lands that “have been stewarded” by the Tribal Nations.

The platform is quite specific about whose land the Chicago area really is, or at least who “stewarded” that land: “While we meet in Chicago, we also recognize and honor the traditional homelands of the Anishinaabe, also known as the Council of the Three Fires: the Ojibwe, Odawa, and Potawatomi Nations. We acknowledge the many other tribes who consider this area their traditional homeland, including the Myaamia, Ho-Chunk, Menominee, Sac and Fox, Peoria, Kaskaskia, Wea, Kickapoo, and Mascouten.” The Democrats remain tactfully silent about how the Ojibwe drove the Ho-Chunk out of what is now known as Wisconsin, and about other warfare between the various sainted Tribal Nations on their list.

The platform has plenty of room, however, for lavish praise of these groups: “We honor the communities native to this continent, and recognize that our country was built on Indigenous homelands. We pay our respects to the millions of Indigenous people throughout history who have protected our lands, waters, and animals.”

Conspicuously absent is any similar praise for the Founding Fathers or any of the heroic figures of American history. From the Democrats’ platform, the uninformed reader would get the impression that the colonialist oppressors arrived in North America, stole the land from the Native Americans, and somehow established a Constitution that now Donald Trump wants to destroy, but which they are working very hard to save.

The platform is as pernicious as it is ahistorical. It perpetuates the leftist mythology that the Native American tribes were living in peaceful, harmonious bliss until the evil colonialists arrived, bringing with them European diseases as well as the chains of slavery and the shackles of injustice. In the left’s ersatz humanist religion, colonialism and whiteness are the original sins, and only Marxism can expiate them. The fact that one would be hard-pressed to find any place on earth that didn’t belong to someone else at one time doesn’t stop them from filling young people with nonsense about how America is somehow a uniquely illegitimate occupying power.

The ultimate lesson the Democrats convey with all this, however, is not that one should vote for them. It’s that one should pick up stakes and move somewhere else, anywhere else, where the weight of colonialist guilt is not felt so heavily. If America is wrong and rotten from the time of its very founding, why are the Democrats working to save it? They should just move to some non-stolen land if they can find any and live there with clear consciences.

Rational thinking, of course, is not what this is about. What it is about is justifying ongoing guilt feelings that will grease the skids for more payouts to supposedly oppressed groups. What the Democratic Party Platform is doing, in the final analysis, is justifying reparations, forced redistribution, and socialism. The sainted native tribes are just props for a deeply sinister effort.


Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 28 books, including many bestsellers, such as The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), The Truth About Muhammad, The History of Jihad, and The Critical Qur’an. His latest book is Muhammad: A Critical Biography. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-garbage-that-starts-off-the-democratic-party-platform/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter