The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.
From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."
Now is the time for countries to choose to back stability - if they don’t then the demise of Nasrallah could be wasted.
People stand next to a banner with a picture of Hassan Nasrallah, in a street in Tehran, Iran September 29, 2024(photo credit: MAJID ASGARIPOUR/WANA (WEST ASIA NEWS AGENCY) VIA REUTERS)
The elimination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah
is an important potential turning point in the region. Now that Iran’s
system of proxies has been punctured, the air could be let out of them,
and they could be deflated. However, the proxies are powerful, and they
don’t appear to want to exit the stage soon.
This leads to key questions about what may come next.
Other countries have an interest in reducing Iran's and its proxies' power. However, Iran has positioned itself in recent years to take advantage of the divisions in the region and the desire of many countries to seek accommodation rather than confrontation.
What does this mean practically?
Saudi
Arabia and Iran agreed to China-backed reconciliation more than a year
ago. This means that Beijing is interested in keeping things peaceful
between Riyadh and Tehran. In addition, Turkey believes that Israel is a
greater enemy to Ankara than Tehran.
Turkey
is a NATO member, and Qatar is a major non-NATO ally. Both of them back
Hamas and have excoriated Israel in recent weeks. That means that key
US allies in the region back Hamas. Most importantly, they don’t want to
see any changes in the region regarding Iran. If anything, they don’t
mind Iran’s role.
Israeli
graffiti artist Liron Tapiro carries his ladder after he finished
working on a graffiti of Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan, in Tel Aviv,
Israel, September 29, 2024 (credit: REUTERS/NIR ELIAS)
Other
countries that might potentially look in favor of a weakened Hezbollah
are not willing to step up to the plate and discuss what comes next
openly. Jordan, the UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt don’t seem to want to make
moves. This leaves Israel mostly alone in the region.
Israel
has felt increasingly alone since the Hamas attacks on October 7. This
doesn’t mean Israel is alone, but public statements and visuals matter.
When other countries in the region meet without Israel, they are sending
a message. The absence of key meetings of the Negev Forum which brings
together peace partners of Israel in the region, is an important hole in
the need for regional integration and cooperation for Israel. This is
where the big question mark will hang after Nasrallah’s demise.
The
region badly needs countries that care about stability to step up and
be willing to do more in Lebanon and in Gaza. Iran’s backing of proxies
is destroying the region. It is harming many countries and brought ruin
to Gaza. It has also now brought potential war to Lebanon, as Israel has
shown it is serious about stopping Hezbollah rocket fire.
For too long the region suffered under the use of rockets by Iranian-backed groups in Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Gaza.
Now is the time for countries to choose to back stability - if they don’t then the demise of Nasrallah could be wasted.
A post-Nasrallah strategy for Lebanon
Israel will need to spell out a post-Nasrallah strategy.
It will be important to see if the western countries will get behind
any initiatives that come from Jerusalem. Over the past year many
western countries have taken a kind of wait-and-see approach. Now they
have a chance to do more.
An
election in the US and the general posture of France and the UK mean
that the opportunity to do more in Lebanon could be squandered. Setting
out a road-map for a potential Lebanon free of Hezbollah would be a good
start.
However,
it’s unclear if that vision will gain traction in the region, or even
in Lebanon. The statements by Lebanese political leaders and key figures
such as Saad Hariri, do not bode well. They seem more interested in
memorializing Nasrallah than finally standing up to Hezbollah.
Without
a Lebanese initiative that also is willing to do more to fill the
vacuum left by Nasrallah’s absence, the potential for backsliding back
into the Nasrallah era will remain. Iran wants this to happen. Iran
understands the inertia is on its side, time seems to be on its side.
That is what Tehran thinks. It thinks China and Russia will bolster
anti-western forces in the region. All Iran has to do is wait, even if
it has to watch its proxies take losses.
by Yonah Jeremy Bob, Shir Perets, Jerusalem Post Staff
The IDF struck Yemen' Hodeidah and Ras Issa ports, attacking oil reserves and military supplies, sources told The Jerusalem Post.
Thick smoke billows from a raging fire at oil storage
tanks a day after Israeli strikes on the port of Yemen's Huthi-held city
of Hodeida on July 21, 2024.(photo credit: AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES)
The IDF’s impressive strike against Yemen’s Houthis
on Sunday was the most powerful one against the terror group since the
beginning of the war, even exceeding the massive strike on Hodeidah in
July, sources told The Jerusalem Post ahead of the IDF announcement.
Dozens
of Israeli aircraft, including F-15I fighter planes, participated in
the operation, striking 1,800 kilometers from Israeli territory after
the Houthis fired three ballistic missiles on the Tel Aviv and central
Israel areas in recent weeks, including one on Saturday.
The
Houthi Health Ministry said the attack resulted in the deaths of four
fighters and the wounding of 29, without any attempt to distinguish
between Houthi members and civilians.
According
to Hezbollah-affiliated outlet Al Mayadeen and confirmed by the IDF,
the targets of the strikes were oil reserves in Ras Issa and also the port of Hodeidah.
Additional
targets included power plants and a seaport used to import oil, which
the Houthis used to transfer Iranian weapons to the region, in addition
to military supplies and oil, IDF reported.
"Israeli aggression targets the city of Hodeidah," Houthi-owned Lebanese media Al Masirah posted.
Initial footage of a blast seen in Yemen's al-Hodeidah port, on
September 29, 2024 (credit: SCREENSHOT/X/VIA SECTION 27A OF THE
COPYRIGHT ACT)
The IDF noted that the Houthis have cooperated with Iraqi militias, who are Iranian proxies, to attack.
Pressed,
multiple military sources implied – both Sunday and last week – that
Israel is still trying to avoid directly striking these militias. This
is done to prevent unnecessarily complicating the situation in that
country for the US, which Jerusalem hopes can maintain its influence
there.
The
military said it was impressive that the air force had managed such a
large and complex operation while also attacking Israel’s adversaries in
Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank, and elsewhere – all in the last 16 hours.
The Houthi-run Al Masirah announced that the Civil Defense has begun
working to put out the fire at the current power station, which was
caused by the strikes.
In
a statement published to the Al Masira X/Twitter account, visual
spokesperson for the Houthis Mohammad Abdul Salam said, “The
American-backed Zionist aggression is condemned, denounced and rejected
and cannot affect the will of the Yemeni people. What the Yemeni people
confirm in their million weekly demonstrations is that they will not
abandon Gaza and Lebanon.”
Iranian
Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Nasser Kanaani, has condemned the
strikes, saying they targeted a power plant and fuel tanks. Reuters
reported.
In
the situational assessment during the strikes in Yemen, Chief of the
General Staff Herzi Halevi said, “We know how to reach very far, we know
how to reach even farther, and we know how to strike there with
precision.”
“I'm
looking at the axis, led by Iran, with Hezbollah as a very central
factor,” he continued, “Hezbollah has been hit very hard in the last
month, the last two weeks, and the last three days, it has lost its
head, and we need to keep hitting Hezbollah hard. This is the main
focus, and we must also adapt our tools for other places."
IDF
Air Force Chief Tomer Bar, IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Herzi Halevi,
and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant all congratulated the pilots and vowed
that Israel’s long arm would strike any enemies who continued to harass
the Jewish state.
Gallant said that Israel prefers not to open new warfronts, but neither will it turn the other cheek.
Yemeni oil company statement
Al
Masirah reported that the Yemeni Oil Company issued a statement
reassuring citizens that all necessary precautions had been taken,
stressing that the supply in all areas under their control was
completely stable.
The
company warned against creating a new oil crisis in the capital,
Sana'a, and the rest of the governorates, explaining that it had
previously taken precautions necessary for any emergency.
The
IDF said its intelligence arm selected targets based on where Iran has
been delivering weapons to the Houthis, mixing civilian locations with
military use to then attack Israel.
The IDF added that the Houthis have been attacking Israel throughout this past year, not only this past month.
The
terror group launched many ballistic missiles and drones at Eilat. In
July, a drone from the Houthis killed a civilian in Tel Aviv.
July airstrikes
THE
ISRAELI airstrikes in July targeted oil-refining facilities in
Hodeidah, as well as Yemeni air force assets, to disrupt the transport
of Iranian weapons to Yemen. Reports indicate that the strikes resulted
in the deaths or injuries of dozens of people.
In
July, local sources in Yemen told Hezbollah-affiliated Al Mayadeen that
there were power outages in several areas in Hodeidah as a result of
the Israeli strikes that hit an electricity production plant.
Israel was clear that it had undertaken the attack without US help, though it had notified Washington in advance.
Additionally,
there were hints that allied Arab countries like Saudi Arabia could
have assisted in July by allowing the use of their airspace or
refueling, which has been long discussed.
Despite
the immensity of the IDF’s July attack on the Houthis, sources told the
Post that Sunday’s attack was far more severe in an effort to finally
deter them from further attacking Israel.
Yemeni attack on Tel Aviv
The
missile attack on Saturday set off sirens throughout central Israel,
including in Tel Aviv. Despite the recovery of shrapnel on Route 375
near Tzur Hadassah, there were no reported injuries.
Until
July, the IDF had outsourced responses to the Houthis to the US, which
was fighting the group over various maritime aggression issues. However,
after the Houthis killed a civilian in Tel Aviv, the Jewish state
struck back directly for the first time.
During
Israel’s July counterstrike, it took two hours and 50 minutes for the
IDF’s F-15s, F-35s, and other fighter jets, which carried out around 10
airstrikes against the Houthis, to reach their targets in the Hodeidah
Port area. Those aircraft took off around 3 p.m. on July 20 and struck
their targets around 6 p.m.
Although
the IDF kept classified the exact number of aircraft it used to refuel
its fighter jets to make the 1,800-kilometer flight and return safely
during that July attack, it provided a dramatic video showing some of
the mid-air refueling in real-time.
Sunday’s
flights and refueling were equally complex, intended to completely
destroy the Houthis’ capability (as opposed to a partial cut in July) to
receive refined products, including weapons, from Iran.
Saturday's
missile attack triggered sirens across central Israel, including in Tel
Aviv, and although shrapnel was recovered on Route 375 near Tzur
Hadassah, no injuries were reported.
Yonah Jeremy Bob, Shir Perets, Jerusalem Post Staff
After leading successful assassination mission targeting Hezbollah leader in Beirut, 69th Squadron commander calls operation 'historic,' emphasizing precision, team effort and emotional impact; 'We knew exactly who the target was'
F15i jets taking off for the strike of Hassan Nasrallah and Hezbollah’s Central Headquarters in Lebanon, from Hatzerim Airbase
(IDF)
Levin, in command for just two weeks before the operation, said the mission was a critical step toward achieving Israel's war objectives. "Nasrallah was the central figure in the Shiite axis," he said, adding that his elimination would significantly impact Hezbollah and Iran's regional strategies.
The operation, conducted by Israel’s elite 69th Squadron, was executed with high-level coordination between intelligence and military units. "The intelligence provided was incredibly precise, which allowed for such a successful mission," Levin said.
IAF fighter jet
(Photo: IDF Spokesperson's Unit)
IAF strikes Dahieh
(Photo: AFP)
He emphasized that the mission showcased a level of decisiveness and initiative that had been missing before October 7, when Israel was caught off guard by surprise attacks from Hamas.
"This is my most important lesson from that day because we must act aggressively and proactively against those who seek to harm us and there are more of them. The mission is not over and we will keep striking Hamas at its roots as we deal with the northern threat."
Elimination of Hassan Nasrallah: The radio communications of the Commanding Officer of the Israeli Air Force, Maj. Gen. Tomer Bar and the Commander of the 69th Squadron
(IDF)
69th Squadron commander Lt. Col. M. noted that his wife is from a kibbutz near the northern border and her family was evacuated at the beginning of the war. "This is a significant firepower with many planes. We waited for a few days until an opportunity arose. People realized this was an unusual opportunity, and therefore they had to know how to succeed and be very precise. Young teams that had only completed training a year ago, along with 50-year-olds in the reserves, participated in the mission.
"We knew exactly who was the target"
The squadron commander led the formation alongside a reservist pilot. Describing the mission, Lt. Col. M. said, "The operation went smoothly, exactly as planned. We knew exactly who was the target."
Pilots embrace after mission
(Photo: IDF Spokesperson's Unit)
Following the landing, the emotional commander reflected on the significance of the mission. "I hugged the crew because you probably only do something this big and historic once in a lifetime. The second hug was for my technical officer, who worked tirelessly to arm the planes. His brother was killed on the Lebanese border. The third was to my family, at Friday night dinner. We didn't talk much, waiting for results, but they understood."
IAF drops 80 tons of armaments on Nasrallah
(Photo: REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir)
Hatzerim Airbase Commander Amichai Levin
(Photo: IDF Spokesperson's Unit)
Lt. Col. M. revealed that the target's identity was kept secret until just hours before the operation. "When the pilots learned who the target was, they understood the mission's value and risk."
Brig. Gen. Levin added, "The key operational challenge was precise intelligence—ensuring the target didn't flee before the strike. We employed creative tactics to ensure success." He noted that Hezbollah's anti-aircraft defenses were neutralized prior to the operation, and the pilots synchronized a large amount of ordnance, striking within seconds of each other.
A Harris administration will almost certainly continue to finance Iran, appease its murderous regime and allow it to acquire nuclear weapons.
U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris speaks at the
CHCI 47th Annual Legislative Conference, Sept. 18, 2024, at the Ronald
Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington, D.C.
Credit: Lawrence Jackson/White House.
Israel today finds itself standing increasingly alone as the world rejects its right to defend itself against genocidal enemies.
And as the United States heads to
elections in November, Israelis are worried that Vice President and
Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris is demonstrating less
support for Israel and more sympathy for Palestinians and their
supporters.
For instance, she has consistently tried
to tie Israel’s hands, calling for the Jewish state to end its war
against Hamas, and refused to attend Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s
speech to Congress in July.
According to Michael Rubin, a senior
fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, an administration led by
Harris “is likely to be the most hostile U.S. administration to Israel”
since U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower’s first term in 1953.
“Even if Harris is neutral on Israel, her progressive base is out for blood and, specifically, Israeli blood,” he told JNS.
As the Biden administration appeases Iran,
the Islamic regime attacks Israel directly and through proxies in Iraq,
Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and Gaza.
Every time Israel went to war against
Hamas in Gaza, in 2008-09, 2012, 2014 and 2021, the international
community, including the Obama administration, forced Israel to stop
fighting. After the horrific Oct. 7 massacre, Israel now aims to destroy
Hamas, and yet again, the international community, including the Biden
administration, is trying to save Hamas.
Likewise, when Hezbollah launched an
unprovoked war against Israel in 2006, the international community
forced a ceasefire after Israel attacked.
Even before Israel assassinated Hezbollah
leader and arch-terrorist Hassan Nasrallah on Friday, the international
community, including the Biden administration, was working hard to
achieve a ceasefire to save Hezbollah.
Israel is never allowed to win.
So when Harris was asked how she would
broker a deal to end the war between Israel and Hamas, she said she
would continue to work on a two-state solution “around the clock.”
This is a major red flag. The Palestinians
have made it clear numerous times since 1947 that they are not
interested in a two-state solution and prefer to destroy Israel instead.
What Harris means then is that she does
not want Israel to achieve victory. Instead, she wants to give
Palestinians a state as a prize for launching endless terrorist attacks
against Israeli civilians for decades instead of pursuing the
establishment of their own state through peaceful means.
While Harris appears to be making an
effort to toe the line set by President Joe Biden, she has deviated from
it somewhat to appease the more leftist elements in the Democratic
Party, with which she is closely affiliated.
Harris said she will “always give Israel
the ability to defend itself and in particular, as it relates to Iran
and any threat that Iran and its proxies pose to Israel.”
But Harris herself has admitted that she
is the “last person in the room” when President Biden makes decisions.
This means she is directly involved in the administration’s decision to
halt crucial weapons deliveries to Israel in wartime.
Her words don’t match her administration’s actions.
After the Biden administration
intentionally delayed weapons shipments to Israel while the Jewish state
is fighting on several fronts against enemies sworn to its destruction,
the United States may no longer be the reliable friend and ally it
claims to be.
In June, Netanyahu released a video on
social media saying that “in the past few months, the administration has
been withholding weapons and ammunition to Israel.”
His words were backed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.).
The White House insisted that it had only
paused a single shipment of 2,000-pound bombs over concerns that they
could cause civilian casualties.
“Congress can promise weaponry, but the
White House has shown a willingness to slow deliveries or use the
existential threat Hamas and Iran poses as a means of leverage,” said
Rubin.
Israel is also worried about Iran
obtaining nuclear capability, a dangerous scenario made even more likely
by both the Obama and Biden administrations, which gave Iran hundreds
of billions of dollars to appease the Islamist regime.
According to Iranian-American political
scientist Majid Rafizadeh, president of the International American
Council, “Iran’s runaway strides in its nuclear program have taken place
largely under the watch of the Biden-Harris administration.”
Writing for the Gatestone Institute,
Rafizadeh said it is “perplexing-verging-on-treasonous that the
Biden-Harris administration has not taken any decisive action to prevent
Iran from going nuclear, or even causing any less devastation in the
Middle East.”
Rafizadeh lamented the Biden-Harris
administration’s “lack of a clear plan, let alone any desire, to stop
Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”
What this means is that a Harris
administration will almost certainly continue to finance Iran, appease
its murderous regime and allow it to acquire nuclear weapons.
Irina Tsukerman, a fellow at the Arabian
Peninsula Institute and at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, has a
different understanding of Israel’s relationship with the United
States.
She told JNS that “the United States, for
all the shortcomings of its political leadership, still remains the
single greatest ally Israel has, and is actually the main reason why the
embargoes against the sales of weapons to Israel by other countries are
not worse than what they already are.”
That being said, Tsukerman recommended
that Israel “diversify its sources of weapons by developing its own
defense industry and by cooperating with other advanced arms producers,
such as South Korea.”
According to Tsukerman, Israeli
cooperation with the United States “is a benefit for both countries,”
especially since in terms of diplomatic support, “there is no full
substitute for the importance of the U.S. support and leadership in the
Middle East.”
However, she said, Israel “should not be
limited to only having one leading ally” and should develop “both
pragmatic alliances of convenience and long-term relationships with
other countries, based on mutual interests and values.”
For instance, she told JNS, Israel could
build a coalition with its Abraham Accords partners to counter the
Muslim Brotherhood threat to the region.
She pointed to Ukraine as a potential ally
since it views Russia, Iran and possibly even China “as a direct threat
to its own interests” and would be willing to cooperate with Israel.
Tsukerman also suggested India and Japan
as additional allies since both countries “are increasingly flexing
their ‘smart power’ muscle in developing countries,” adding that
improved relations with these countries could aid Israel in “forging
support in the ‘Global South.’”
Israel already has a positive relationship
with India, “which has proved to be a surprisingly resilient ally
despite international pressure,” according to Tsukerman.
While Japan has traditionally been Arabist
and is still reluctant to confront Iran, “The political mindset in the
Japanese government circles is shifting, and the people of Japan are not
specifically anti-Israel,” she said.
Given the changing international order and
the political shifts taking place in America, Tsukerman said she
believes Israel’s realpolitik “needs to be informed by the realities,
needs and vulnerabilities of its prospective partners and
would-be-friends and not just by wishful thinking and the outdated
hasbara approach.”
Rubin told JNS that Israel “must recognize
that U.S. support, at least for the next four years, will be fleeting”
if Harris wins the presidential election on Nov. 5.
Multiple times, the US has urged Israel to act less aggressively or not to take certain actions against Hezbollah, to avoid a larger regional war.
US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin speaks during the
AUKUS Defence Ministers Meeting at Old Royal Naval College, Greenwich,
London, Thursday, Sept. 26, 2024. (photo credit: Kin Cheung/Reuters)
US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin
was furious with Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and Israel when he was
informed with very little notice that the IDF was about to kill
Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah, The Jerusalem Post has learned.
However,
a US defense official said that the description of the call between
Austin and Gallant was overstated and that a more accurate description
would be that Austin was firm and candid in his conversation with
Gallant.
Throughout the war, Gallant
informed Austin of major developments, which has been a signature part
of how the two governments have communicated, especially given the low
level of trust between US President Joe Biden and Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu.
Considering
that Israel changed foreign ministers and that Netanyahu has not given
either Eli Cohen or his replacement Israel Katz much authority over
higher-level foreign affairs (as opposed to internal Foreign Ministry
staffing and relations with lower-profile countries), the Gallant-Austin
relationship has taken on even more importance than the standard close
relationship between Israeli and US defense chiefs.
Further,
the two have met more often than some of their predecessors due to the
numerous emergencies brought about by the war, in addition to their over
125 phone calls, with some coming multiple times in a day.
Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, raising his finger. (credit: Mohammad Kassir/Shutterstock)
The
two have developed a close relationship beyond the professional issues
involved in coordinating the two countries’ defense strategies, and yet
Austin essentially lost it with Gallant over the Nasrallah killing and
the short notice provided.
The
most important factor for Austin and the Biden administration
throughout the war regarding Hezbollah has been to avoid falling into a
larger regional war.
America's goal is to stop regional war
The
US has urged Israel multiple times to act less aggressively or to avoid
taking certain actions against Hezbollah to prevent such a scenario.
The
implication is that in this case Gallant and Israel informed the US
very late in the game so as to avoid a debate or situation where they
could be pressured into refraining from acting.
This decision, on top of the decision itself to kill Nasrallah,
which Israel likely correctly predicted the US would have opposed,
appears to have been an additional reason for Austin’s personal anger at
Gallant, despite his general trust in Gallant as one of the most
apolitical and substantive members of the Netanyahu government, who has
generally valued US advice more than many others in the government.
Wisconsin GOP Rep. Bryan Steil said that while it is illegal on paper for illegal migrants to vote in U.S. elections, it does happen.
House Administration Committee
Chairman Bryan Steil, R-Wis., is warning that Democrats want to use the
voting laws in Washington, D.C., as a roadmap to get foreigners to vote
in all 50 states.
"Other municipalities around the country not only allow non-citizens
to vote in municipal elections.....[they] are actually using taxpayer
dollars to encourage non-citizens to participate in our elections,"
Steil said on a Just the News, No Noise televisionspecial sponsored by the Association of Mature American Citizens (AMAC).
The District of Columbia has a law that allows individuals 18 and up —
foreign or American — who have lawfully resided in the city for over 30
days to vote in local elections, according to Democracy Docket.
"So someone working at the Russian embassy who's a Russian
citizen....if they've resided in Washington, D.C. for 30 days, they can
walk down to the polling station this November and vote in the municipal
elections," Steil said. "So they want to use Washington, D.C., as a
petri dish and roll this out nationally."
Steil, whose committee oversees election integrity issues, said that
while it is illegal on paper for illegal migrants to vote in U.S.
elections, it does happen.
"This is about enforcement [and] about preventing individuals from
taking illegal action......it's why we moved the SAVE Act through my
committee to make sure that we're requiring individuals who are
registering to vote simply prove that they're a United States citizen,"
he said.
The SAVE Act requires proof of citizenship to vote in elections. The
House passed the SAVE Act in July with five Democrats voting in support
of it.
"This is a common sense bill that has no reason that the United
States Senate hasn't taken it up," Steil said. "The United States Senate
should take it up immediately and we need to work together to make sure
that U.S. elections are for U.S. citizens only."
Election integrity has made headlines over the past few years as
Americans have brought attention to concerns about elections not being
secure.
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said that his state has
made some changes to better secure elections going forward.
"In Georgia, security has been my top priority," Raffensperger said
in the special report. "We're going to make sure we have free, fair and
fast elections."
He explained that Georgia recently implemented a law that states
absentee ballots have to be reported no later than 8 p.m. on election
night.
"We're expecting probably about five [or] maybe six percent of all
voters in Georgia to choose to vote absentee," he said. But about 60 to
65% will actually vote early. So all those vote totals will be reported
by 8 p.m. We think that's a good thing."
Some Republican leaders have speculated that the reason Democrats
don't want to do much regarding election integrity is because they want
illegal migrants to vote to swing elections.
"I think it's pretty clear that one of the plays in the Democrats'
playbook for 2024 has been to convert all of these illegals coming
across the border into voters," chairwoman of the Election Integrity
Network, Cleta Mitchell, said during the special.
Mitchell referenced the "Help America Vote Act" which was passed in 2002 and made reforms to the way Americans voted.
"In the Help America Vote Act, it's required that before someone can
be added to the voter rolls, you have to verify their identity and their
residency," she said. "Guess what's missing from that list?
Citizenship."
She referenced that the SAVE Act is important and should be passed by
the Senate as it has already been passed by the House back in July.
"This is a really big threat and the more we can keep it on the front
burner, hopefully the more awareness there is," Mitchell said. "People
need to be watching their DMV's and watching their local election
offices and finding out, 'What's going on in your community to keep
noncitizens from voting?'”
China and Russia's increasing nuclear aggression signals their efforts to achieve nuclear dominance over the U.S., threaten American allies, and undermine U.S. deterrence capabilities.
The growing nuclear belligerence from the People’s Republic of China
(PRC) and Russia should be a major concern of Americans and their
allies. The PRC’s test of either an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile
(ICBM) DF-41 or of a Submarine Launch Ballistic Missile (SLBM) JL-3 from
Hainan on September 24 was an undeniable effort to signal its nuclear
strength to the world. It was the first such a test in 44 years. The
missile’s spent first and second stages landed on either side of Luzon
in an important coercive signal to the Republic of the Philippines,
principally, but also the small states of the Pacific, that the PRC is a
formidable nuclear state and Manila is not. Manila depends upon
protection from nuclear threats as a result of its alliance with the
United States.
The test was also meant to undermine the confidence of these states
in the alliance with the U.S. The stark message of the test was nuclear
bullying—to convey that there is nothing the U.S. can do to help the
Philippines or other states to avoid Beijing’s wrath if it so chooses.
The Philippines today hosts the U.S. Typhon land-based mid-range missile
system in the northern Philippines. Typhon can launch either SM-6 or
Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles, which are of far shorter range than the
DF-41 or JL-3. The test of an intercontinental missile was Beijing’s
effort to assert escalation dominance by demonstrating that its missiles
could strike the U.S. and so introduce doubt in the minds of Filipino
officials as to the credibility of the U.S. commitment.
In the Cold War with the Soviet Union, French President Charles De
Gaulle wondered aloud whether the U.S. would trade New York for Paris.
That is, if the Soviets attacked NATO, Washington was pledged to
escalate to the strategic level, involving a nuclear exchange between
the U.S. and the Soviet Union that was certain to see New York
destroyed. De Gaulle surmised that the U.S. valued New York more than
Paris. So, if push came to shove and a war started in Europe, the U.S.
would abandon its commitment to its NATO allies. In a similar fashion,
Beijing is attempting to cast doubt in the minds of politicians in
Manila and elsewhere around the region that the U.S. would honor its
alliance commitments and that it would not trade Los Angeles for Manila.
Fortunately for the U.S., it has an excellent ally in the Philippines.
According to the Associated Press, Chief of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines Gen. Romeo Brawner, Jr., told reporters that “if I were
given the choice, I would like to keep the Typhon here in the
Philippines forever because we need it for our defense.”
On September 25, Russian President Vladimir Putin held a meeting with
the Russian Security Council, after which several major changes to
Russia’s declaratory nuclear doctrine, The Fundamentals of State Policy
on Nuclear Deterrence, were announced. Russia reaffirmed the importance
of its nuclear triad—bombers, ICBMs, and SLBMs—and its right to use
nuclear weapons in the case of an attack against Russia or Belarus but
added this was the case even if either state were attacked with
conventional weapons, including UAVs. Russia’s nuclear doctrine
increases the already significant role of nuclear weapons, as Russia is
plainly signaling they can execute nuclear attacks against non-nuclear
states, or attacks on Russia made with the support of a nuclear power.
There have been observations that Ukrainian nuclear power plants might
be added to Russia’s conventional bombing campaign against Ukraine.
The actions by the PRC and Russia underscore that the balance of
power in the nuclear realm is rapidly turning against the U.S. Both
states possess formidable arsenals and are throwing their nuclear weight
around. In particular, the PRC’s belligerent actions are clear and
dangerous indications that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has ordered
the military to race for nuclear superiority over the U.S. through
their “strategic breakout.” If achieved, it will defeat the credibility
of the U.S. extended deterrent and threaten the U.S. homeland through
escalation dominance.
While Beijing still purports to adhere to a “no first use” policy
toward nuclear war, the fact remains that in the past three years, the
PRC has built over 300 nuclear ICBM silos in central and western China,
has upgraded the submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) aboard
their sea-based leg of their triad, expanded their ballistic missile
submarine production facilities, and introduced a new nuclear bomber,
the H-20, which very closely resembles the U.S. B-2 bomber. Both
Admiral Richard and General Cotton have termed the PRC’s nuclear
expansion as “breathtaking.” Additionally, we have seen PLA Air Force
H-6 bombers flying nuclear bomber profiles with their Russian Long Range
Aviation counterparts into the Alaskan Air Defense Identification zone.
By every metric, the CCP is flexing its strategic muscles by
expanding its nuclear arsenal and its strategic reach. Most worrisome
is that this activity comes just days after the Commander of the PLA’s
Southern Theater Command, General Wu Yanan, attended the Indo-Pacific
Command’s Chiefs of Defense conference in Honolulu—a meeting that was
said to help cool tensions between Beijing and Washington. This promise
was made against the backdrop of the PRC cutting off
military-to-military (mil-to-mil) talks with the U.S. and the
Biden-Harris administration’s obsession to restart such talks by sending
a “Conga-line” of senior cabinet officials to Beijing over the past two
years.
Yet within days of General Wu’s visit, the PLA Strategic Rocket Force
conducted this test launch of an ICBM into the South Pacific. Not only
does the test put to bed the notion that the PLA Strategic Rocket Force
(PLARF) is rife with corruption and disloyalty to General Secretary Xi
Jinping, but it also sends a clear and unambiguous message to the region
that Beijing’s military power is equal to or greater than the U.S.’s in
the region.
Most worrisome for Americans is that this test demonstrates the CCP
has both the intent and capability to attack the American homeland with
nuclear weapons—something PRC military officials have talked about doing
for over 20 years. This test should also be a reminder that nuclear
disarmament talks, which were pushed by the Biden-Harris administration,
are toothless in the face of the strategic goals of the CCP to defeat
the U.S. The right response is to address immediately the grave problems
in the U.S. nuclear infrastructure and arsenal.
***
James E. Fanell and Bradley A. Thayer are authors ofEmbracing Communist China: America’s Greatest Strategic Failure. The views expressed are their own.
Yardena Schwartz's new book explores the 1929 Hebron massacre and its lasting impact on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, drawing parallels to today's ongoing strife.
Synagogue desecrated by Arab rioters. Hebron.(photo credit: LIBRARY OF CONGRESS)
Before October 7, 2023, there was August 24, 1929.
On
that date in 1929, “3,000 Muslim men armed with swords, axes, and
daggers marched through the Jewish quarter of Hebron,” writes Yardena
Schwartz. Before the day was over, the streets of the ancient city in British Mandate Palestine ran red with blood; 67 Jewish men, women, and children were murdered, and the rest of the 800-strong Jewish community fled.
In her new book, “Ghosts of a Holy War: The 1929 Massacre
in Palestine That Ignited the Arab-Israeli Conflict,” Schwartz examines
the day’s violence in forensic detail and argues that the pogrom in
Hebron, part of a spate of anti-Jewish riots that August, inspired the
extremism on both sides that continues to make the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict so intractable. Having revised her original manuscript after
the Hamas attack on October 7, she argues that there is a direct line
between the two attacks in how they shaped a century of bloodshed.
“If
we continue to ignore that history and the role religion plays in this
conflict, I think we’re just going to be destined to another 100 years
of wars and massacres,” she told me in an interview on Thursday, a
little over a week before the one-year anniversary of what she calls the
“Black Sabbath.”
A coach arrives in Hebron from Jerusalem to salvage possessions from
Jewish houses after the 1929 Hebron Massacre. (credit: gettyimages)
Hebron experience
Schwartz,
raised in New Jersey, moved to Israel in 2013, when she was 23, and
spent the next decade reporting on Israel for NBC News and other
outlets. She first visited Hebron as a student at the Columbia University
Graduate School of Journalism, where she was dismayed by the draconian
measures Israel used to protect a tiny community of Jewish settlers
living among some 250,000 Palestinian residents of the city and the
extremist politics of the Jews who lived in nearby settlements.
But
she later discovered another alternative history of Hebron, where both
Jews and Muslims worship at the Tomb of the Patriarchs, the traditional
site of Abraham’s burial plot, as well as those of other Jewish
patriarchs and matriarchs. Drawing on a recently discovered cache of
letters from David Shainberg, one of the Jewish victims, to his family
back in Memphis, Tennessee, she writes that before the massacre, Jews
felt safe in Hebron and imagined a future of coexistence.
Told
largely from the perspective of Shainberg and other Jews living in
Palestine at the time, the book is also a lament for opportunities lost
to armed resistance and extremist ideologies. “The only way out is to
empower the moderate, peace-seeking Israelis and Palestinians whose
voices have been sidelined for too long,” she writes.
Schwartz now lives in Rhinebeck, New York, where she moved with her family three months before the October 7 attacks.
Our conversation was edited for length and clarity.
Victims from all over
Your
book was inspired by letters belonging to a Jewish family in Memphis,
Tennessee named the Lazarovs. Their great uncle David Shainberg moved to
the British Mandate Palestine in 1928 to study at a yeshiva in Hebron,
and he would become one of the 67 Jewish victims of the massacre.
What did you learn from his letters home that made you want to turn them into a book?
"In
early 2019, I was introduced to this family in Memphis that a decade
earlier had discovered this box of letters sitting in their attic for
decades. They were sitting on a treasure trove, because those letters
painted a picture of Hebron that few people have ever known. I had heard
of the massacre, but I didn’t really know much about it. I didn’t know
about a history of Arab and Jewish peaceful coexistence in Hebron that
had preceded the massacre, and it was really astonishing to see how far
Hebron has fallen since the time when David was living there."
"Reading
them and seeing what Hebron was before the massacre made me want to
really dive deep into figuring out how the massacre so fully transformed
Hebron and formed so much of the ideology behind the settlement
movement, and the settlers in Hebron particularly. And I wanted to know
how the Arabs in Hebron view the massacre."
"You
talk about a history of coexistence, but we know from Palestinian
narratives that they were wary about Jewish immigration and many were
already agitating against the British and the Zionists. By 1928, the
Jewish population in the Mandate had nearly doubled to 150,000, compared
to 800,000 Arab Muslims and Christians, over the previous decade and
there was increasing resistance to this growth. Is it tempting to make
too much of what you write was “the safest place for a Jew in
Palestine”?
"In
1929, there wasn’t that much resistance to the Jewish presence on the
part of ordinary Palestinians. It was mostly their leaders who were
speaking out against Jewish immigration and Jewish land purchases. But
at that point it was still very minimal. In 1929 Arabs were a vast
majority in British Mandate Palestine. And yes, Jewish immigration had
increased, but that was relative to what it was under the Ottomans, and
before the British came in, it was very difficult for Jews to immigrate
to Palestine, and there were strict quotas."
'The Jews are dogs'
"These
were Jews escaping persecution in Eastern Europe. And when you think
about the rhetoric that was used against Jewish immigration, it sounds a
lot like the rhetoric used against immigrants today. It wasn’t, “the
Jews are going to take over the land.” It was “Palestine is our land.
The Jews are our dogs.”
"Arab
leaders at the time felt threatened by the idea that Jews would no
longer be second-class citizens, but they would have equal rights. They
couldn’t get the masses to ascribe to that position, so they used
religious disinformation and the lie that the Jews were planning to
conquer the Al Aqsa mosque [on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount]."
And
the main leader and instigator at the time was Haj Amin al-Husseini,
the grand mufti of Jerusalem, who you write “waged a campaign of fear
and propaganda.”
The
mufti discovered this wildly successful tool to rally support behind
him to distract from his own corruption and his own failures to improve
the lot of his own people. He rallied the anger that was already there
and targeted it at the Jewish minority.
His
star rose as a result of 1929. If you’ve read Oren Kessler’s book
[“Palestine 1936: The Great Revolt and the Roots of the Middle East
Conflict,” 2024], you know that he was at the top of the great Arab
revolt in 1936 and ultimately fled Palestine and ended up allying
himself and his cause with Hitler and serving as a Nazi propagandist and
recruiter of thousands of Muslim volunteers for the SS. And yet, after
World War II, he lived an open life. He moved to Cairo and then Beirut,
and he trained [Yasser] Arafat, and ended up assisting in the jihad
against the Jews of Palestine that began in 1947 immediately after the
UN Partition Plan [separating the British Mandate territory of Palestine
into two states, one Jewish and one Arab].
So
do you believe that the region would have been set on a different
course if a different kind of Palestinian voice had emerged as far back
as this era?
Mufti distribution
"When
you look at the Arab leadership at the time, there was a willingness to
cooperate. That was before the mufti rose to prominence. There was
cooperation among mayors of cities like Jaffa and Jerusalem and Nablus
and Jenin, and the more power the mufti secured, the more he intimidated
what are known today as “collaborators” and peace-seeking moderates.
They faced assassination or attacks from pro-mufti activists."
"It’s
really interesting to consider what could have happened if Herbert
Samuel [the first high commissioner for British-ruled Palestine] had
chosen one of the actual winners of an election for grand mufti in 1921,
because al-Husseini came in last. Who knows what could have happened if
one of those moderates had been chosen to lead the Palestinian Muslims,
who were under British rule at the time?"
"At
the same time, what’s happening in the Jewish community? Today we talk
about hawks and doves, or Labor Zionists and Revisionists. We know at
the time of the massacre that there were Zionists who had grander, more
nationalist plans for establishing Jewish sovereignty in Palestine."
"The
Revisionists did want to see all of historic Israel being part of a
future Jewish state, but they were the minority at the time, and
especially before the 1929 massacre, that mindset was really on the
margins. The massacre strengthened those forces within the Zionist
movement."
"Strengthened
the forces that said there was no coexisting with the Arabs, that said
only a Jewish state with a Jewish army could protect the Jews of
Palestine. After the massacre of 1929 so much of the opposition melted
away. The British just proved completely incapable and almost unwilling
to protect the Jews of Palestine in 1929."
What did you discover about the massacre that perhaps hasn’t been told before?
The Arab silver lining
"One
of the most moving parts for me was the heroic stories of Arab families
who risked their lives to protect their Jewish neighbors. I also hadn’t
really understood or read the extent to which the Jews and Arabs in
Hebron were so intertwined. I didn’t know that there were businesses in
Hebron that were co-owned by Jews and Arabs before 1929, and one of
those Jewish families actually remained in Hebron after the massacre
until 1947."
"And
also the stories of the atrocities were just harrowing. Before Oct. 7,
we had never seen anything like that in modern times in Israel. Reading
about babies being slaughtered in their mother’s arms and teenage girls
being raped in front of their families before they were killed: It was
just really shocking."
You write that the “parallels between 1929 and 2023 are haunting and too dangerous to ignore.” What are some of those parallels?
"Immediately
after the massacre in Hebron, those atrocities were denied by Arab
leaders and by Arabs in Palestine who spoke to reporters. And another
parallel we see today is the victim-blaming that followed both
massacres. Arab leadership also blamed the Jews of Hebron for
perpetrating atrocities."
"And
today, after October 7, that victim blaming didn’t come just from Arab
leaders, but it came from academics, from the media, from world leaders.
I mean, the U.N. Secretary-General [Antonio Guterres] said the Hamas
attack on southern Israel “did not happen in a vacuum,” giving credence
to this idea that the victims had it coming. And when the British sent
the Shaw Commission to investigate the causes behind the Hebron
massacre, they pardoned the Mufti for his incitement. They attributed
the spark of the riots not to the incitement, not to the lies that led
to it, but to this peaceful march by Jews to the Western Wall who were
protesting against the British for not doing more to protect Jews who
wanted to worship freely there."
"I
also think [about] the fact that in 1929 the victims were
overwhelmingly anti-Zionists. Their lives revolved around Torah and the
Tomb of the Patriarchs. And then connect that to the victims of October
7, so many of whom were left-wing, peace-seeking Israelis, many trying
to help Palestinians in Gaza.
And
that shows us that this, at its core, is not a conflict about land, but
a conflict based in religion, particularly radical Islam. I mean, of
course, Jewish extremism plays a role in it too, especially today, but
until very recently, the Jewish extremists had very little, if any, role
in the Israeli government. Today they’re holding the reins of the
Israeli government, which is horrible and terrifying."
"But
over the course of the last century, Islamic extremists and corrupt
leaders have defined Palestinian government and leadership and held
Palestinian society hostage to their insistence on violent armed
struggle and a rejection of Jewish existence in the land of Israel and a
rejection of Jewish history."
"There’s
just no hope for a future of coexistence and a two-state solution when
Palestinian leaders reject every two-state solution and the right of
Jews to live in the land of Israel."
How
do Arabs remember the massacre? Is it seen as a good thing, an
intifada? Is it seen as a shameful thing? Is it still talked about
today?"
"In
Hebron, very few Palestinians even know about the massacre unless
they’re over a certain age, and those who do know about it say that it
wasn’t the Arabs of Hebron who perpetrated it, it was the British. So
there’s this widespread denial of the massacre, and at the same time,
there’s a glorification of the perpetrators of it."
Celebrating getting away with it
"Every
year, Red Tuesday is honored in Palestinian society as the day when the
only three people who received punishment for carrying out the
atrocities were executed by the British in 1930. There are Palestinian
anthems that are based on poems about those men glorifying what they
did, and they’re considered some of the first martyrs of the Palestinian
cause."
And
on the Jewish side: You write about the late Brooklyn-born rabbi Meir
Kahane, whose Kach party called for the expulsion of Arabs from the Land
of Israel, and Baruch Goldstein, the Israeli-American who gunned down
29 Muslim men and boys worshiping at the Tomb of the Patriarchs in 1994,
and who is now glorified by the settlers in and around Hebron. From the
Jewish perspective, what were the wrong lessons learned from the Hebron
riots?
"One
of the most interesting findings I came away with was how prominent the
massacre was in shaping the ideology of Meir Kahane. I had no idea,
until I met [far-right Israeli activist] Baruch Marzel, just how much
the massacre of 1929 formed Kahane’s anti-Arab, anti-coexistence
ideology, and it really does just inform so much of the radical settler
movement, who cling to this idea that there is no possibility of
coexistence. "
And
I think after October 7, these kinds of arguments are much more
prevalent in Israeli society. October 7 radicalized many Israelis, and
many left-wing Israelis in the wake of October 7 have shifted
rightward.
"We’ve
seen now, over the course of a century, armed resistance and rejection
of a Jewish state, by hardening attitudes, has just pushed a Palestinian
state further into the distance. If the Palestinian state was not on
the horizon before October 7, it surely is not going to be any closer
now."
The
views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and
do not necessarily reflect the views of JTA or its parent company, 70
Faces Media.
