Conspiracies Too Awful to Imagine? - Victor Davis Hanson

 

by Victor Davis Hanson

A decade of unprecedented fury at Trump saw his opponents undermine civil liberties, weaponize institutions, and set precedents that risk eroding the republic.

 

Over the decade of Donald Trump’s political career, the left—as exemplified by Democratic politicos, the media, academics, the Washington military hierarchy, and the permanent bureaucratic state—illustrated a level of furor, venom, and near madness unprecedented in modern American history.

Yet stranger still about such visceral, indeed lunatic hatred, despite Trump’s eccentricities and lack of a traditional political resume, his administration between 2017-21 was successful by traditional economic, military, security, and diplomatic standards. It was certainly not characterized by weaponizing the DOJ, Pentagon, CIA, or FBI, get-even vendettas, the use of lawfare, corruption, optional wars, open borders, hyperinflation, or a war on the environment—as predicted and alleged. Nevertheless, the idea of Trump as president justified to the left the greatest assault on our civil liberties, justice system, and free expression in modern history.

Indeed, at times the frenzy has ranged the gamut of an unprecedented two impeachments, a first Senate impeachment trial of a private citizen ex-president, and a coordinated effort to deplatform the major Republican presidential candidate from state ballots.

But at other times, the efforts were more sinister—and conspiratorial—to the point that the attempt to destroy the purported threat of candidate, president, and two-time candidate Trump apparently justified any means necessary.

In retrospect, what is the legacy of these unmatched efforts? They have established precedents, if ever again followed, will destroy the republic as we have known it.

1. “Russian collusion.” There was never any evidence that a 2016 Trump candidacy sought to “steal” the election through the intervention of the Putin Russian government. But a paranoid Clinton campaign, through the deliberate paywalls and agency of the DNC, Perkins Coie law firm, and Fusion GPS consulting firm, hired a retread ex-British spy, Christopher Steele—who was also FBI Director James Comey’s paid informant—to fabricate a “dossier” of invented scandals and salacious sex detail to smear Trump and ensure his defeat.

That effort required sowing the dossier throughout the government, partnering with traditional and social media, warping the FISA courts, forging an FBI-submitted document, and ambushing and destroying the National Security Advisor designate Gen. Michael Flynn.

Two years later, the self-congratulatory Robert Mueller’s “dream team” and “all-stars” of liberal beltway lawyers evaporated after finding no such Trump-Russian collusion—after a wasted nearly two years and $40 million. Meanwhile, revelations emerged of all sorts of covert FBI skullduggery—from erasing incriminating cell phone records, the revelations of the Strzok-Page text exchanges indicating an apparent FBI “insurance policy” effort to preclude a winning Trump candidacy, to the meltdown of Director Comey himself, who lied to the president that he was not a target of an investigation and then leaked confidential records of a private one-on-one presidential conversation to the media.

2. Indeed, during the Trump administration, we witnessed once more undreamed-of efforts to sabotage a presidency:

a) A former Pentagon lawyer publishing a call for either immediate Trump impeachment, 25th Amendment removal, or a military coup.

b) A planning session of the Deputy Attorney General and Interim FBI Director to discuss stealthily recording the President of the United States in hopes of finding enough off-the-record embarrassing conversations to justify a 25th Amendment removal.

c) A later 2020 campaign effort jumpstarted by the current Biden Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the former interim CIA Director Mike Morrell, with help from former CIA Directors John Brennan and Leon Panetta, along with former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, to round up 51 “former” (but actually many enjoying then-current CIA contractor status) “intelligence authorities” to publicly mislead the public by signing a letter that the incriminating Hunter Biden laptop (then in the hands of and authenticated as genuine by the FBI) was once again a Russian effort to throw the election to Trump. It was an obvious scripted lie, but timely scheduled before the last debate to arm Biden with plausible denials and thus to help swing the election to him. And it likely did.

d) There was, in addition, an effort by the heads of the NIH, Francis Collins, and NIAID, Anthony Fauci, deliberately to obfuscate, and allegedly in the case of Fauci, to lie under oath, about the efforts of American health authorities 1) to evade U.S. prohibitions on gain-in-function viral research, by funding the third-party EcoHealth Alliance to facilitate the transference of American money, instrumentation, and consulting to partner with the Chinese communist Wuhan virology lab; 2) to obfuscate the truth that the lab had somehow leaked the lethal, manmade virus—birthed with the help of U.S. expertise—that was killing millions worldwide; 3) to promulgate a false scenario of a bat/pangolin origin; 4) to deny under oath the American government’s role in the birth of the virus; 5) to suppress dissident scientific voices; and 6) to advise radical quarantine policies that would virtually destroy the U.S. economy along with the Trump 2020 reelection effort, and then shift blame from their own culpability to a false narrative that Trump was the chief driver of a disastrous national shutdown that had ruined the economy and yet was supposedly nearly criminally lax in controlling the outbreak.

e) The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, took it upon himself to 1) violate his own legal prerogatives as an advisory military official by unlawfully interrupting the chain of command when ordering theater commanders to report directly to him rather than as legally required to the Secretary of Defense in times of national crises, and 2) without presidential or Pentagon written authority, contacted his Chinese communist counterpart, Gen. Li Zuocheng of the People’s Liberation Army. His stated aim apparently was to reassure the Chinese military that in Milley’s own view, if he should diagnose Trump, his own commander-in-chief, as unbalanced and intending to escalate tensions to the threshold of a possible nuclear war, Milley again would first contact General Zuocheng to reassure him that an erratic Trump would then be not in full command of American strategic forces. Then he, Milley, with others, would seek to de-escalate tensions and preclude a conflict.

Milley denied any impropriety. But he could not negate that he had no such authority to act on the part of the executive branch and was doing so in direct opposition to the President of the United States. Milley was also de facto creating a dangerous precedent for any future ambitious, freelancing chairmen of the Joint Chiefs, both to interrupt the chain of command and to self-diagnose their commander-in-chief to justify excluding him from exercising his responsibilities entailed in his oath of office.

f) In the 2020 election cycle, left-wing-funded legal teams systematically and under the guise of the COVID lockdown sued in favorable courts to overturn or modify state balloting laws to ensure the most radical and abrupt changes in U.S. voting procedures in history.

The net result was that in many key states, traditional Election Day balloting that had accounted for 60-80 percent of the cast votes was made a mere construct. Instead, some 60-70 percent of voters in many key states cast early- or mail-in ballots, even as the traditional rejection rate of such ballots drastically fell—again, as the numbers to be counted soared.

g) During this same 2020 election, according to liberal journalist Molly Ball, writing triumphantly post facto in Time magazine, a named “cabal” and “conspiracy” of billionaire leftist grandees, Silicon Valley monopolists, Chamber of Commerce, corporate entities, labor, and street activists sought to change balloting laws, street modulate demonstrations, enlist social media to censor and shape the news, partner with the FBI, and provide hundreds of millions of dollars to absorb the work of state registrars by supplying their own adjutant employees and voting materials. This was a holistic effort, Ball proudly wrote, that helped guarantee a Biden victory.

h) During 2021-2024, there were 91 local, state, and federal felony indictments launched against the ex-president and then-current front-running Republican candidate and opponent of the sitting president Biden. The charges were so blatantly political, and the principals in direct or indirect contact with either the White House counsel, the Department of Justice, or each other, that the multifaceted effort could be rightly termed a conspiracy to warp the legal system by destroying a political opponent. The charges would never have been brought against any other political candidate or against Trump himself—had he not publicly announced his intention to run a third time for president.

3. Never in recent election history had a presidential candidate in the midst of the final stretch of the campaign been the target of two assassination attempts—in part enabled by a climate of widespread and acceptable vituperation that equated Trump with a vile Hitler, fascist, Nazi, and dictator and thus encouraged unhinged would-be killers to delude themselves into believing they would forever be enshrined as heroes. And never would social media influencers, columnists, and celebrities voice near approval of such attempts on the leading presidential candidate’s life.

The first would-be assassin was an amateur shooter, who easily evaded Secret Service scrutiny to post himself in sight of bystanders, as he enjoyed a direct line of fire at Trump. Meanwhile, local law enforcement was desperately trying, in vain, to warn the lax Secret Service of the immediate danger to the president. The second wannabe assassin approached with impunity the most recognizably vulnerable spot on a local golf course, staked out a shooting position, and would have, if not spotted, been within minutes of having an uninterrupted shot at the president.

4. Finally, not since the Woodrow Wilson scandal of 1919-1920, have the media and the Democratic left conspired to hide the morbidities of a president that left him unfit mentally and physically to carry out the duties of the office.

That current and still ongoing covert effort put the nation at great risk, as evidenced by the catastrophic humiliation in Kabul, the successful Russian gamble that the U.S. would not or could not deter Putin from invading Ukraine, the unsteady and anemic reaction to the theater-wide wars in the Middle East, the hyperinflation of 2021-2, the erasure of the southern border, the deliberate greenlighting of some 12 million illegal aliens into the United States, and the weaponization of the FBI, CIA, and DOJ.

The final irony?

Those who were perpetrators of these illicit, unethical, and unprecedented efforts were themselves the first and most prominent to project Trump as the promulgator of conspiracies to debilitate the very institutions that they had already undermined and disgraced.

Victor Davis Hanson

Source: https://amgreatness.com/2025/01/06/conspiracies-too-awful-to-imagine/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Blinken’s parting words: No hostage deal? Blame Hamas, not Netanyahu - analysis - Herb Keinon

 

by Herb Keinon

Blinken's comments in the interview Saturday were not all that predictable when nearly 20 minutes of the 50-minute conversation turned toward Israel, Hamas, and Gaza.

 

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken attends an interview, in Brussels, Belgium December 4, 2024.

(photo credit: REUTERS/Johanna Geron)

The way US Secretary of State Antony Blinken began his swan-song interview with The New York Times some three weeks before leaving office was predictable: The Biden administration he served left America better placed around the world than when it came into office.

“Today, as I sit with you, I think we hand over an America in a much, much stronger position, having come through the economic crisis, having come through the health crisis, and having changed much for the better [of] our position around the world because we made those investments in alliances and partnerships,” he said in a message approximating what every secretary of state says when they leave office.

But his comments in the interview Saturday were not all that predictable when nearly 20 minutes of the 50-minute conversation turned toward Israel, Hamas, and Gaza.

Here are some key takeaways:

Netanyahu not to blame for no hostage deal

Among certain segments of the Israeli public, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the reason the hostages are still languishing in Hamas’s tunnels. If he only really wanted their freedom, they would be released.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken (credit: MICHAEL VARAKLAS/POOL VIA REUTERS)

Yair Golan, chairman of The Democrats party, gave voice to this sentiment in a KAN Reshet Bet interview Sunday morning. “Israel does not want an agreement; the prime minister of Israel does not want an agreement,” he said. “Netanyahu could have reached an agreement three or four times for sure; he dismissed this, he lies to the press, he leaks reports to Bild. All kinds of shameful tricks and games. He should stand up before the citizens of Israel and say, ‘I don’t want to free the hostages, I have political pressure, I can’t do it.’ He should tell the truth for a change.”

Ah, the truth.

In a situation where secret negotiations are ongoing for months, it is difficult to say what the “truth” is.

But Blinken, who has been closely involved in the negotiations, probably has a pretty good idea. And here is what he said when asked by the interviewer whether Netanyahu blocked a ceasefire deal in July that would have led to the hostages’ release.

“No, that’s not accurate,” he said. “What we’ve seen time and again is Hamas not concluding a deal that it should have concluded.”

Blinken said there have been times, such as when Israel killed Hamas head Yahya Sinwar, that Israeli actions have made getting to a conclusion of a deal more difficult, but unlike Golan, he clearly placed the onus not on Netanyahu but on Hamas.

Daylight between Israel and the US is not good

In a meeting with Jewish leaders at the beginning of his presidency in 2009, then-US president Barack Obama famously rejected the premise put forward by Malcolm Hoenlein, then the head of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, who had said `for Israel to take risks, its leaders “must know that the United States is right next to them.”

“Look at the past eight years,” Obama reportedly said. “During those eight years, there was no space between us and Israel, and what did we get from that? When there is no daylight, Israel just sits on the sidelines, and that erodes our credibility with the Arab states.”

As if to show the world that daylight, Obama went on a tour of the Mideast a month earlier that brought him to Saudi Arabia and Egypt but not to Israel. You want daylight? That was daylight. In this way, Obama was putting into practice a policy many presidents before him believed as well: The way to get closer to the Arab states is to distance America from Israel.

Blinken, who served at the time as then-vice president Joe Biden’s national security advisor, told the Times that perceived daylight between Israel and the US emboldened Hamas and made the possibility of a hostage deal more distant.

Blinken said there were two main impediments to Hamas reaching an agreement to free the hostages. One impediment, he said, was when there was public daylight between the United States and Israel and the perception that pressure on Israel was growing: “We’ve seen it: Hamas has pulled back from agreeing to a ceasefire and the release of hostages.”

As a result, there were times, Blinken said, that what the US said in private to Israel was not what it said in public so that Hamas would not get the wrong idea. Daylight, he said, means that “the prospects of getting the hostage and ceasefire deal over the finish line become more distant.”

The other main impediment to Hamas making a deal, Blinken said, was their belief and hope that there would be a much wider conflict: “that Hezbollah would attack Israel, that Iran would attack Israel, that other actors would attack Israel, and that Israel would have its hands full, and Hamas could continue what it was doing.”

Even Blinken is frustrated at how the world has lost the thread on Gaza

The Times’ journalist, Lulu Garcia-Navarro, who interviewed Blinken, began the section on Gaza with a perfunctory acknowledgment that Hamas’s October 7 attack led to “horrific results, which we saw.”

Then she said Israel’s response has been “extreme,” quoted as gospel the UN figures of the Palestinian death toll at 45,000 without saying those figures are based on Hamas numbers and do not differentiate between combatants and noncombatants, said the population is starving, all hospitals have been destroyed, the destruction of Gaza has been “fairly indiscriminate,” and wondered whether Blinken worried that perhaps he presided over “what the world will see as ethnic cleansing.”

To his credit, Blinken flatly refuted the ethnic cleansing canard, saying, “It’s not, first of all.”

None of the responsibility for the evil Garcia-Navarro listed did she place at Hamas’s doorstep.

Blinken, again to his credit, flagged this, though not specifically referring to her.

“Look, one of the things that I found a little astounding throughout is that for all of the understandable criticism of the way Israel has conducted itself in Gaza, you hear virtually nothing from anyone since October 7 about Hamas,” he said. “Why there hasn’t been a unanimous chorus around the world for Hamas to put down its weapons, to give up the hostages, to surrender – I don’t know what the answer is to that.

“Israel, on various occasions, has offered safe passage to Hamas’s leadership and fighters out of Gaza. Where is the world? Where is the world saying, Yeah, do that! End this! Stop the suffering of people that you brought on!

“Now, again, that doesn’t absolve Israel of its actions in conducting the war. But I do have to question how it is that we haven’t seen a greater sustained condemnation and pressure on Hamas to stop what it started and to end the suffering of people that it initiated.”

And what was Garcia-Navarro’s very next question? Asking for a response to a State Department employee’s gripe about how the department “frequently rolled over for Israel, that no one would read his reports on civilian casualties.”

An agreement with the Saudis is not dead… but it means a pathway to a Palestinian state

Blinken revealed that he was originally scheduled to go to Saudi Arabia and Israel on October 10 to pursue normalization and “work on the Palestinian component of any normalization agreement between Saudi Arabia and Israel.”

“Obviously, that didn’t happen,” he said.

Nevertheless, he added later in the interview, normalization with Saudi Arabia still “can happen tomorrow” based on the work the administration has done and “once there is an end to the conflict in Gaza and an agreement on a credible path forward for the Palestinians.”

According to Blinken, the prospect exists of a totally different region “with normalized relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia and many other countries, Israel integrated into the security architecture of the region, and – because it will be a requirement of any such normalization agreement – a real pathway to a Palestinian state.”

UN reports and Moshe Ya’alon damage Israel abroad

Most Israelis pay little attention to UN reports concerning it or off-the-wall comments by embittered ex-politicians and former generals and prime ministers carrying a bellyful of grievances against Netanyahu.

So when a UN agency says that Israel is committing ethnic cleansing, or former IDF chief of staff and defense minister Moshe Ya’alon makes outlandish claims of ethnic cleansing and war crimes, they dismiss them given the context: The UN agencies are implacably anti-Israel, and Ya’alon’s hatred of Netanyahu has clouded his judgment.

But the world doesn’t see things in the same way, and when UN agencies determine that Israel’s actions border on ethnic cleansing, or Ya’alon says Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing or war crimes, it enters the broader narrative that shapes the conversations.

Blinken did not refer to either the UN or Ya’alon, but his interviewer did, quoting UN figures on the Palestinian death toll, a UN committee report that found Israel’s warfare practices were “consistent with the characteristics of ethnic cleansing,” and Ya’alon’s statement.

The latter, especially, was used as evidence of Israel’s wrongdoing. “This is internal criticism. This is not external. So I guess I would repeat the question and ask you, has Israel respected the rules of war in Gaza?” she asked Blinken.In other words, when a former Israeli defense minister accuses his own country of war crimes, or a UN committee throws around the term ethnic cleansing, it doesn’t stay inside the bubble of local politics – it shapes the way the world sees Israel.These claims, no matter how biased or politically driven, don’t just get brushed aside; they become part of the broader conversation. That, too, came out clearly in this interview.

Herb Keinon

Source: https://www.jpost.com/international/article-836195

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

An ‘estimated 40% of Hamas tunnels’ still remaining, Israeli expert tells TML - Keren Setton

 

by Keren Setton

IDF is continuing to find weapons depots, Hamas terrorists, and tunnels. Hamas' military abilities cannot be defeated as quickly as critics of the IDF strategy would like to believe.

 

IDF soldiers uncover tunnel route in the Gaza Strip, November 2, 2024.

(photo credit: IDF SPOKESPERSON'S UNIT)

Israel continued to pound Gaza over the weekend, as Palestinians reported tens of people killed in the ongoing war between the Hamas terrorist organization and the Jewish state.

For more stories from The Media Line go to themedialine.org

The Israeli military announced it had carried out airstrikes against over 100 targets, including Hamas terrorists and rocket launching sites.

For over a year, Israel has staged a massive military operation against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Its stated goals are to remove Hamas as a governing power in the territory and release all the hostages.

In what appears to be an intensification of the fighting and amid the war, Hamas and Israel are engaged in indirect talks aimed at reaching a ceasefire and releasing at least some of the 100 Israeli hostages still being held by Hamas since the beginning of the war.

Thousands of Israelis rallied on Saturday evening to protest the government and pressure it to reach a deal with Hamas. 

Mossad director David Barnea seen over a wall of hostage posters in Tel Aviv (illustrative) (credit: FLASH90)

Israel's continued military presence in the Gaza Strip and the refusal by the current government to withdraw from the territory, a pre-condition by Hamas for any deal, has so far blocked a ceasefire from being reached. 

The army is not only present in Gaza, but it also continues to fight at varying levels of intensity. On Friday, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) issued evacuation warnings for areas in the center of the Gaza Strip ahead of an operation there. The IDF also continued to operate in the north of the territory.

"The area consists of structures overlooking Israeli territory and serves as a central terror hub containing anti-tank firing positions, booby traps, shafts, numerous explosives, and launch sites for targeting Israeli territory," read a statement by the army.  

A northern Gaza tunnel uncovered and dismantled by the IDF. (credit: IDF SPOKESMAN’S UNIT)

In addition, the army continues to control the Philadephi and Netzarim corridors in southern and central Gaza, respectively, aimed at blocking Hamas from being able to re-arm and re-position itself.

Adopting a policy of incursions rather than operating in the whole of Gaza continuously, the army has found itself often re-entering areas it has already operated in several times.

Flaws of "mowing the grass"

This policy of "mowing the grass," coined by Prof. Efraim Inbar and Dr. Eitan Shamir, has entangled Israel in its longest war ever. It refers to a strategy of pinpointed military operations limited in time to quell a temporary threat, barring a more permanent political solution. 

But, according to Shamir, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar Ilan University, Hamas' military abilities cannot be defeated as quickly as critics of the IDF strategy would like to believe. 

"Hamas had over twenty years to accumulate a massive amount of firepower, dispersing it in many areas, including in its widespread underground tunnel network," Shamir told The Media Line. "Combined with other terrorist organizations, such as the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), it had approximately 30,000 fighters. This could take two to three years to get rid of." 

Israeli forces are continuing to find weapons depots to encounter Hamas terrorists and tunnels, in a testament to the continuance of Hamas' presence in the territory. 

Weapons manufacturing equipment located in a Hamas tunnel, November 2, 2024. (credit: IDF SPOKESPERSON'S UNIT)

"There is an estimated 40% of the tunnels still remaining, hundreds of kilometers of tunnels the Israeli intelligence was not aware of," said Yoni Ben Menachem, an expert of Middle Eastern affairs from Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, told The Media Line. "There are still very long tunnels that Israel has yet to have located, some of them with hostages inside. This requires a very big operation and a massive amount of explosives that Israel currently does not possess."

Hamas stunned Israel on October 7th, 2023, when it attacked the south of the country in a rampage that killed approximately 1200 Israelis and wounded thousands more. It also took approximately 250 people hostage, 100 still in captivity. In response, Israel launched a massive war against Hamas. According to the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry, over 45,000 Palestinians have been killed since and over 107000 wounded. 390 Israeli soldiers have been killed in the ground invasion of Gaza.

The war quickly developed into a regional, multi-front confrontation. The Lebanese Hezbollah and the Houthi terror groups began launching attacks against Israel, forcing it to respond and divert critical resources to other fronts. A fragile and temporary ceasefire with Hezbollah has been in place for a month now. Should it last, Israeli troops are expected to withdraw from southern Lebanon at the end of January. 

"Israel does not have enough forces at this point to subdue Hamas both militarily and in its ability to govern Gaza," Ben Menachem said. "In order to do that, Israel needs to occupy the entire Gaza Strip and announce it is enforcing temporary military administration."

According to Ben Menachem, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government is waiting for major developments before progressing in that direction.

One is the fate of the ceasefire and hostage deal talks, and the other is the upcoming change in the US administration, with President Joe Biden's departure and Donald Trump's inauguration on January 20th. Netanyahu hopes Trump, who has favored his policies during his previous term, will pose less of an impediment.

"The Israeli government has so far avoided discussing its plans for Gaza after the war because of the opposition from the Biden administration to an Israeli military rule there," Ben Menachem said. 

Netanyahu has not ruled out a military rule in Gaza, although he has shot down calls from within his coalition to re-settle Gaza with Jewish settlements. In addition to setting Hamas' removal from power as one of the war goals, the Israeli premier has also voiced opposition to the return of the Palestinian Authority to rule Gaza, deeming it a supporter of terrorism. 

"The alternative to incursions is military rule, which will enable complete control of Gaza," said Shamir. "It will prevent, not completely, Hamas' ability to rise up. But it will require a lot of resources because it is essentially occupying Gaza."

Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, ending 38 years of complete control of the territory. 

"It will take a long time, but Israel's presence in Gaza now, including its blockade on Gaza through the control of all of its entrances, is not the perfect option," Shamir added. "But it does meet the needs. There is not much different that Israel can do, and it will take time."

The Israeli leader is also facing calls to change the policy regarding the distribution of humanitarian aid in Gaza.

The aid, facilitated mainly by Israel through its control of all of Gaza's entry points, has been an issue of contention within Israel since the beginning of the war in October of last year. It has also been subject to international scrutiny and critique. Some members of the government want to see the IDF distributing the aid as a means to weaken Hamas' hold on Gaza. Right now, Israel oversees the entrance of the aid but has humanitarian organizations responsible for its dispersal, a process often hampered by Hamas' ability to take over the aid and control its distribution. 

Israeli media has reported that the army Chief of Staff, Lt.-Gen. Herzi Halevi, plans to resign in the coming weeks. Halevi, who is seen by many in the Israeli public as partially responsible for the blunder that enabled Hamas' surprise attack, is reportedly awaiting the conclusion of internal military inquiries into events that led up to the war. Halevi is believed to have been contrarian to the Netanyahu government on many issues, including humanitarian aid and the conduct of the war effort in Gaza.

"There are places in Gaza, especially in the center, which the army has not entered yet," said Ben Menachem. "The war in Gaza has been handled haphazardly, with a lack of strategy. Mowing the grass is not efficient and can only be done once Hamas has been won over in order to prevent it from re-grouping and not when it still has a standing army of 20000 armed terrorists." 

The presence of Israeli hostages is also believed to be one of the reasons behind decision-making in the war. 

"The presence of hostages does not pose a major limitation on how the war is waged," said Shamir. "The IDF effort is limited by international law and the deep embedment of Hamas terrorists in the civilian population in Gaza."

If the ceasefire talks fail, there could be an intensification of the fighting by Israel in an attempt to increase the pressure on Hamas. However, after fifteen months of war, the terrorist organization has shown no flexibility in its demand from Israel to completely withdraw from Gaza and stop all military action against it. This is despite the massive price Palestinians have paid and the widespread damage in the Gaza Strip, which has rendered many areas unrecognizable. 

"The hostages remain Hamas' only leverage," said Shamir. "Unless Israel meets Hamas demands, only a partial deal that will ease some of the pressure off Hamas is possible."

Keren Setton

Source: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-836273

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

FBI reveals new info on New Orleans terrorist attacker's past trips to New Orleans, Egypt and Canada - Just the News Staff

 

by Just the News Staff

"Our agents are getting answers as to where he went, who he met with and how those trips may or may not tie into his actions here in our city of New Orleans," Myrthil told reporters.

 

In a press conference on Sunday, the FBI provided new information regarding the alleged terrorist who plowed through the French Quarter in New Orleans just hours after the start of the new year in a rented Ford pick-up, killing 14 and injuring dozens more. 

Among the new bits of information were that the perpetrator of the terrorist act, Shamsud-Din Jabbar, a U.S. citizen from Texas who had served in the Army, had made at least two previous trips to New Orleans, in October and November, and in 2023 had traveled to Egypt and Canada, according to CBS News. 

The FBI shared video footage that Jabbar recorded using Meta glasses on one of his trips to New Orleans, while riding through the French Quarter on a bicycle.  

Lyonel Myrthil, the special agent in charge of FBI New Orleans, said Jabbar was wearing those glasses again when he drove into the crowd on Bourbon Street, but that he did not have the recording feature turned on at that time. 

Federal agents are still saying that it appears that Jabbar acted alone, without accomplices, and that ISIS has not claimed responsibility for the attack. Jabbar had an ISIS flag flying from the truck at the time of the attack. 

"Our agents are getting answers as to where he went, who he met with and how those trips may or may not tie into his actions here in our city of New Orleans," Myrthil told reporters.

Jabbar bought ice chests in Texas on Dec. 31, 2024, to hide improvised explosive devices (IEDs) before driving into Louisiana and going to a home that he rented, officials said, according to Fox News. 

In the early morning of Jan. 1, 2025, Jabbar placed IEDs at two locations. The FBI released video that shows him placing one of the chests at Bourbon and Saint Peter Street and a second at Bourbon and Toulouse Streets. He failed, according to officials, in his attempt to detonate the devices during his attack.

"He didn't have access to a detonator, so he used an electric match in its place to try to set off the explosive material," said Joshua Jackson, ATF Special Agent in Charge of the New Orleans Field Division. "It's not novel. What was different is he didn't use the right or the correct, device to set it off. And that is just indicative of his inexperience and lack of understanding of how that material might be set off."

 
Just the News Staff

Source: https://justthenews.com/nation/crime/fbi-reveals-new-info-new-orleans-terrorist-attackers-past-trips-new-orleans-egypt-and

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Canada, the Panama Canal and Now Greenland. What's Behind Trump's Expansionist Rhetoric? - Robert Spencer

 

by Robert Spencer

There's the bottom line: if the United States doesn't control the Panama Canal and Greenland, China or Russia likely will, and the consequences could be severe both for the American economy and for national security.

 

• Trump is once again being true to his America-First convictions.

• [Trump's] question to Trudeau was pointed, and remains unanswered: "So your country can't survive unless it's ripping off the U.S. to the tune of $100 billion?"

• Trump explained that the Panama Canal "was given to Panama and to the people of Panama, but it has provisions, you gotta treat us fairly and they haven't treated us fairly."

• There's the bottom line: if the United States doesn't control the Panama Canal and Greenland, China or Russia likely will, and the consequences could be severe both for the American economy and for national security.

President-elect Donald Trump recently said that the Panama Canal should once again come under American control, and that the US should buy Greenland from Denmark. If the United States doesn't control the Panama Canal and Greenland, China or Russia likely will, and the consequences could be severe both for the American economy and for national security. Pictured: An aerial view of ships passing the Pedro Miguel locks in the Panama Canal, in May 2023. (Photo by iStock/Getty Images)

First, President-elect Donald Trump tweaked Canada's far-left Prime Minister Justin Trudeau about becoming governor of the 51st state of the United States of America. Then he said that the Panama Canal should once again come under American control. Make that the 52nd state. And now, are you ready for a 53rd state? Last month, Trump renewed a call he made during his first term: that the United States should buy Greenland from Denmark. Could the man possibly be serious?

Maybe not. The left's propaganda arm, also known as the mainstream media, loves to portray Trump and his supporters as angry, bitter, ignorant people lashing out against the people who know better what's good for them. Trump has never gotten credit for his sense of humor, despite the fact that he is easily the funniest man to occupy the White House since Ronald Reagan, and may even surpass the Gipper.

Much of Trump's humor goes entirely unnoticed. Few have taken any note of the fact that his new Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, recalls the Doge internet meme that Elon Musk briefly made Twitter's logo in 2023. And Trump's teasing of "Governor" Trudeau went so far over the head of MSNBC that the far-left garbage machine actually put out an article ascribing the gibe to Trump's "confusion."

On the other hand, there was nothing funny about Trump's statement that the U.S. should resume control of the Panama Canal. "Has anyone ever heard of the Panama Canal?" Trump asked the crowd at AmericaFest. "Because we're being ripped off at the Panama Canal like we're being ripped off everywhere else."

Trump explained that the Panama Canal "was given to Panama and to the people of Panama, but it has provisions, you gotta treat us fairly and they haven't treated us fairly."

"If the principles, both moral and legal, of this magnanimous gesture of giving are not followed, then we will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to the United States of America in full, quickly, and without question."

Trump wasn't being funny about Greenland, either. "For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World," he wrote on December 22, "the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity."

This got the same reception that it got during Trump's first term. Greenland's Prime Minister Mute Egede said haughtily the next day that "Greenland belongs to the people of Greenland. We are not for sale and we will not be for sale." He doesn't seem to have mentioned that Greenland is not an independent state, but is Danish territory.

Even in floating the idea, however, along with his statements about the Panama Canal, Trump has become the most forthrightly expansionist president since William McKinley. Is this all about personal vainglory, as the left contends, or is there more substance to it? The answer is clear: Trump is once again being true to his America-First convictions.

His question to Trudeau was pointed, and remains unanswered: "So your country can't survive unless it's ripping off the U.S. to the tune of $100 billion?" Trump asked Trudeau this question when the Canadian prime minister complained that the tariff Trump threatened to levy if Canada continued to do nothing to control its long border with the U.S. would destroy Canada. That's where the Canada-as-the-51st-state gibe originated; it's really all about Trump protecting American interests.

With the Panama Canal, it's the same situation. Trump contends that we're not being treated fairly. Politico reported that he "also said he would not let the canal fall into the 'wrong hands,' warning of potential Chinese influence in Panama."

Regarding Greenland, it's once again the same story. Harvard International Review noted in an August 2024 article:

"While Greenland remains closely linked to Scandinavia as an autonomous region of Denmark, global powers such as the United States, China, and Russia are racing to extend military and economic influence in the region as it becomes more habitable."

There's the bottom line: if the United States doesn't control the Panama Canal and Greenland, China or Russia likely will, and the consequences could be severe both for the American economy and for national security. So while the leftist intelligentsia laughs at Trump's revival of the Manifest Destiny imperative, there is, as is so often the case, a method to his madness. Trump is playing the great power game at a time when the left wants nothing more than for America to stand down and let China be the world's great power. It's yet another reason why leftists hate him so passionately.

 
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. Spencer has led seminars on Islam and jihad for the FBI, the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army's Asymmetric Warfare Group, the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), the Justice Department's Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council and the U.S. intelligence community. He is a senior fellow with the Center for Security Policy. Follow him on X/Twitter here.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21274/trump-canada-panama-canal-greenland

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Tommy, Nigel, and Elon - Bruce Bawer

 

by Bruce Bawer

Three men and an infant political party.

 

[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]

In cities all over England, so-called grooming gangs – that is, Muslim rape crews – have been in operation for decades, and news about them has made headlines on and off for years. In the last week or two, however, the issue has risen to the surface as never before. “Britain’s grooming gangs scandal is attracting attention,” wrote Charlie Peters of GB News on January 2. “It’s happened before, but now it seems different.” Indeed, Brendan O’Neill said in a recent interview that “a lot of people” in Britain appear to be hearing about the grooming gangs for the first time. How on earth is this possible?

In any event, one reason why the issue has returned to the front burner is that Jess Phillips, Britain’s Safeguarding Minister, has refused to order a government inquiry into child sexual abuse in Oldham, which is part of Greater Manchester. Another reason is that Elon Musk began tweeting (X-ing?) in condemnation of the government inaction on the rape gangs – and in support of the courageous Tommy Robinson, the Luton lad (now age 42) who’s been a target of the British establishment ever since he began blowing the whistle on them many years ago. On January 2, he posted: “Free Tommy Robinson!” It’s Jess Phillips, not Tommy, opined Elon, who should be behind bars. Elon’s tweets about Tommy and the rape gangs “exploded the political discourse in this country,” said British podcaster Carl Benjamin, a supporter of Tommy.

Tommy, as you may know, has been in prison since October. His crimes are as follows. First, in his documentary Silenced, in violation of a court order, he contradicted the official narrative about a young Syrian immigrant who was, as Tommy showed, not a victim but a thug. Second, also in violation of the same court order, he talked about that young immigrant on Jordan Peterson’s podcast, screened Silenced in Trafalgar Square, and posted it online (where it’s accumulated over 150 million views). Third, In supposed violation of the Terrorism Act, he refused to let the police access the contents of his mobile phone, which contained confidential information about his sources. This isn’t Tommy’s first stretch in the hoosegow. The powers that be recognize him as a threat to their power and are determined to bring him down on any pretext they can. As Lavrentiy Beria said, “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” In short, Tommy is a political prisoner. And Elon understands that.

Elon’s posts about Tommy prompted a range of reactions. Tommy’s supporters were delighted. But many of Tommy’s critics were outraged at what they described as the attempt by a foreigner to interfere in British politics. Winston Marshall (who left the band Mumson & Sons after his public enthusiasm for Andy Ngo’s book about Antifa caused outrage on the left) shot these critics down tidily:

If it’s acceptable for British politicians to kneel for George Floyd, why is it not acceptable for American citizens to tweet about the victims of British rape gangs?

If it’s acceptable for Labour to send 100 staff to the US to campaign for Kamala, why is it not acceptable for American citizens to opine on British politics?

If it’s acceptable for Labour’s leading politicians…to slander Trump as racist, why is it not acceptable for Americans to criticise British politicians for the systemic betrayal of British children?

If it’s acceptable for Westminster elites to praise Biden/Kamala, why is it unacceptable for American elites to praise Farage?

Farage, of course, is Nigel Farage, longtime friend of Donald Trump and head of the Reform UK Party, which since its founding in 2018 has been positioning itself as the real conservative party, the party for patriots and ordinary people – in effect, the British equivalent of the MAGA movement. Nigel firmly backs calls for a government inquiry into grooming gangs. But in a January 4 interview – and here’s where things get messy – Nigel vigorously rejected the proposition that Tommy is a political prisoner. Tommy, he added, was not welcome to join Reform UK. Nigel even suggested, disgracefully, that Tommy has crusaded against the grooming gangs in order to turn a buck. (Sorry – a pound.) Nigel’s deputy, Richard Tice, agreed. Back in October, Tice dismissed Tommy’s supporters by referring to them as “all of that lot.” On January 5 he reiterated his distaste for Tommy: “I’m not interested in Mr. Yaxley Lennon, or Robinson, or a convicted criminal,” he told an interviewer for GB News. “I’m interested in how we get this country growing again.”

Disgusting. Yes, Tommy is a convicted criminal. So is every patriotic Brit who’s now in jail for expressing concern online about grooming gangs and other aspects of the Islamization of Britain. (And yes, Tommy goes by a fake name. So did Cary Grant.) The fact is that by setting themselves so firmly against Tommy, Nigel and Tice alienated a hell of a lot of voters, some of whom began asking: is Nigel leading a real revolution, or is he just controlled opposition? Tice’s “all of that lot” putdown drew furious comments online: “Tice & his demonization of Tommy is making me consider revoking my membership.” “Richard thinks he can have a grass roots movement without the grass roots.” “The problem is, if they keep saying we don’t care about Tommy, they actually don’t care about freedom of speech.” On January 4, YouTuber Paul Thorpe put out a blistering hour-long video in which he withdrew his support for Nigel. In addition, Nigel and Tice put themselves in a ticklish position in regard to Elon – who has expressed support for Reform UK and discussed the possibility of throwing some cash their way – and also, perhaps, in regard to Trump, who these days is even closer to Elon than to Nigel. On January 4, addressing Reform UK’s party conference, Nigel celebrated his friendship with Trump and described Elon as a supporter of Reform and of himself (but omitted to mention their disagreement over Tommy).

In the same speech, Nigel decried the grooming gangs’ predations – but instead of admitting that these predations are a distinctively Muslim phenomenon, rooted in the doctrines of Islam, he spoke about “the mass rape abomination.” Sorry, but to dodge the real issue in this way is cowardly and useless. The sad truth, alas, is that Nigel is terrified of alienating Muslim voters. Even when he was the face of Brexit – which, he argued, needed to be ratified so that Brits could put an end to mass immigration and control their own borders – he consistently refused to say that Islam was in any way part of the problem. He left the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in 2018 because its then leader, Gerard Batten, did acknowledge that Islam was problematic. Nigel said that he had no interest in “fighting a religious crusade.” Even if Nigel wanted to change his tune now, he could hardly do so, given that the chairman of Reform UK is – believe it or not – a self-identified Muslim named Zia Yusuf. (I call him “self-identified” because in a paean to Nigel last June, Yusuf spoke up for “equality under the law,” and freedom of speech and religion – not exactly Koranic values.)

Nigel isn’t alone in his ticklishness about Islam. Yes, it’s common all over the Western world – but it’s particularly endemic in the UK. In Germany, Italy, France, and the Netherlands, the police have been known, from time to time, to put down rowdy Muslim protests; in Britain, the cops consistently go after the people who criticize those protests. In no Western country other than Britain, moreover, are Muslims consistently labeled with the word “Asians” or with any other such euphemism. (Even the usually admirable editor of Spiked, Brendan O’Neill, in a recent interview about the renewed interest in grooming gangs, used the weasel terms “certain communities” and “Asians.”)

But there’s yet another problem that’s more endemic in the UK than elsewhere in the West – and that’s the class system. If Nigel and Tice were able to welcome Tommy Robinson into their fold, they might well have a winning movement comparable to Trump’s. But they’re constitutionally very disinclined to do such a thing. They claim to be spearheading a populist revolution – to be speaking for the downtrodden, the regular folks. But they can only go so far down that road, because neither one of them is a member of the working class. They’re men who wear Savile Row suits and who know how to dine at a three-star Michelin restaurant and who, quite simply, talk a certain way. They’re products of the British class system – it’s in their DNA – and try as they might, they can’t keep from looking upon the lower orders in pretty much the same way that Hillary Clinton does. To her, they’re “deplorables”; to Tice, they’re “that lot.” (And they’re not alone on the British right. The Telegraph is a conservative daily, but on January 3 its associate editor, Gordon Rayner, praised Nigel for having “no time for Robinson.”)

So when they look at Tommy they don’t see a hero, as I do. They see somebody who expresses himself in what they consider a vulgar manner. Douglas Murray is brilliant at laying it on the line about Islam while still sounding clubbable (as upper-class Brits put it, or used to). But every time Tommy opens his mouth to make exactly the same points as Douglas, he sounds, to the likes of Nigel and Tice, like a lowbrow bigot. The British elite, truth be told, has always viewed the proles as bigots. That same elite has also always had a thing – what to call it? a fetish? a yen? – for Arabs and Islam, the prime example thereof being Lawrence of Arabia. So the reflexive tendency of types like Nigel to keep a distance from people like Tommy has nothing to do with real differences of opinion. It’s entirely about a class gulf, a culture gulf, a style gulf.

After Elon and Nigel both had their say on Tommy, there was speculation that Elon, to please Nigel, might back off from supporting the lad from Luton. But that’s not Elon. On January 5, out of the blue, he tweeted, with devastating succinctness: “The Reform Party needs a new leader. Farage doesn’t have what it takes.” If Elon’s expression of support for Tommy shook up British politics, this sudden thumbs-down for Nigel – the day after the Reform UK conference! – amounted to a category-7 earthquake. One is free to wonder how this will affect the Trump-Farage alliance. In any case, what matters is that Elon’s right. And after his tweet about Nigel, the latter’s unwillingness to grapple with Islam will almost certainly prove to be even more problematic for his fledgling party, which stands the best chance of saving Britain from the lunatic left and its Muslim allies. For what it’s worth, I’m with Elon. Dump Nigel, folks, and replace him with – well, if not Tommy, then with somebody like Tommy, someone who respects and understands Tommy, and someone who grasps the plain and simple fact that Tommy’s cause is Reform’s cause.

Bruce Bawer is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/tommy-nigel-and-elon/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

German Government Covering Up Islamist Attack? - Robert Williams

 

by Robert Williams

Evidently, the German government does not consider disinformation a problem, so long as it is the German government that is doing it.

 

• "He [Christmas market attacker Taleb al-Abdulmohsen] himself claimed to be a Wahhabi. He had open contacts with Hamas people, as well as with supporters of IS. He threatened ex-Muslim and secular associations, as well as women who had fled from Saudi Arabia and renounced Islam. The association and the women legally defended themselves against him. He attacked the Central Council of Ex-Muslims as well as me as a member. All the major critics of Islam blocked Taleb because everyone received confused messages and threats. He never directly criticized Islam or its associations. While we protested in front of mosques, he fought us. He also repeatedly defended Saudi Arabia." — Ali Utlu, German ex-Muslim, X, December 21, 2024.

• The German government, it appears, is covering up an Islamist terror attack at a Christmas market as "Islamophobic." Perhaps the ruling coalition of Social Democrat and Green parties is seeking new votes in next month's elections; perhaps it is seeking to pretend away its own massive failure at stopping a terrorist about whom the authorities were warned so many times.

• Evidently, the German government does not consider disinformation a problem, so long as it is the German government that is doing it.

The German government, it appears, is covering up Saudi Arabian Taleb al-Abdulmohsen's Islamist terror attack at a crowded Magdeburg Christmas market as "Islamophobic." Abdulmohsen drove 200 meters into the market on December 20, murdering a nine-year-old boy and four women, while wounding more than 200 people, 40 critically.. Pictured: Ambulance crews evacuate people who were wounded in the attack. (Photo by Craig Stennett/Getty Images)

The German city of Magdeburg was written into the sad history of terrorist attacks by Muslim migrants, when Saudi Arabian terrorist Taleb al-Abdulmohsen drove 200 meters into a crowded Christmas market on December 20, murdering a nine-year-old boy and four women, while wounding more than 200 people, 40 critically.

It has been a quarter of a century since German authorities first identified an Islamist terrorist cell in the country. In 2000, that cell was preparing a terrorist attack on a Christmas market in Strasbourg, France. Since then, and especially after German Chancellor Angela Merkel's policy of leaving Germany's borders wide open to Muslim migrants in 2015, Islamist terrorism has been the major security threat in Western Europe, especially in Germany, where Christmas markets have been an especially coveted target. Author and journalist Douglas Murray calls it, "one of the Continent's newest traditions: the Christmas market terrorist attack." In December 2016, an Islamist also rammed a vehicle into a Christmas market in Berlin, murdering 12 people and wounding 50.

What have 25 years of terrorism experience taught German authorities? Apparently, nothing.

The German authorities, and their unofficial spokespeople in the legacy media, would have Germans believe that Abdulmohsen was a hate filled right-winger and ex-Muslim who hated the adherents of his allegedly former religion. While the investigation of his attack is still ongoing, Interior Minister Nancy Faeser nevertheless told reporters, "We can only say with certainty that the perpetrator was obviously Islamophobic."

"With certainty"? Never mind that Saudi Arabia warned German authorities repeatedly that Abdulmohsen posed a danger. Never mind that he reportedly threatened a terror attack in Germany more than 10 years ago, in 2013, referring to the Boston Marathon bombing. According to The Telegraph:

"Abdulmohsen, angry that a German medical association had requested more paperwork before allowing him to practise as a psychiatrist, threatened the association on the phone with the words: 'Did you see what happened in Boston? Something similar will happen here too.'"

He made a similar threat a year later, but the German authorities appear not even to have noticed it: In 2016, he was granted asylum in Germany.

Never mind that a Saudi woman in Germany had repeatedly attempted to warn German authorities that he wanted to murder random Germans. Never mind that he made Islamist postings on X, threatening, "We will return Hamas to Gaza and if you like we can bring Hamas to your home so you can taste it." In fact, Abdulmohsen commented on a post by Nancy Faeser on her own X account that he was going to murder people: "It is likely that I will die this year to ensure justice," he wrote to Faeser prior to his attack. German authorities, so zealous in prosecuting "hate" on X that they are arresting pensioners, totally ignored a real threat.

While Abdulmohsen posed as an ex-Muslim atheist who was a fan of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party and Elon Musk, a few genuine ex-Muslims saw through it and recognized it as taqqiyah – dissimulation to advance the goals of Islam.

"I'll say it again: many people who have had contact with Taleb, like me, deny that he was ever an atheist or ex-Muslim," wrote Ali Utlu, a German ex-Muslim.

"He himself claimed to be a Wahhabi. He had open contacts with Hamas people, as well as with supporters of IS.

"He threatened ex-Muslim and secular associations, as well as women who had fled from Saudi Arabia and renounced Islam. The association and the women legally defended themselves against him. He attacked the Central Council of Ex-Muslims as well as me as a member. All the major critics of Islam blocked Taleb because everyone received confused messages and threats.

"He never directly criticized Islam or its associations. While we protested in front of mosques, he fought us. He also repeatedly defended Saudi Arabia. For what?

"Dozens of people are sharing screenshots of conversations where he threatened people because they are ex-Muslims."

The German authorities – so desperate to prevent "hate" and "misinformation" that they arrest German citizens over innocent internet postings, such as the 64-year-old who had his home raided, electronic devices seized and was arrested for calling Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck an idiot on social media – apparently decided that it would be politically opportune to amplify Abdulmohsen's taqqiyah as incontrovertible fact. The German government, desperate to keep the AfD out of power, jumped at the chance to make a link between Abdulmohsen and the political party that is threatening the German Left's hold on power.

Interior Minister Faeser, apart from proclaiming Abdulmohsen's identity as an "Islamophobe" with "certainty," appears -- as has been customary in the German government since Merkel's time in office -- hell-bent on denying that Germany might have a problem with Islamist terrorism. When, last summer, three people were murdered in a stabbing attack by a Syrian in Solingen, Faeser's main concern was that the attack not be used to "sow hatred."

"We will not allow ourselves to be divided in such times, but stand together and will not allow such a terrible attack to divide society," she said at the time.

Faeser appears to have only one objective in mind: for the German Left to stay in power indefinitely. In September 2023, she proposed that foreigners and migrants who have spent as few as six months in Germany should be allowed to vote in local elections.

The German government, it appears, is covering up an Islamist terror attack at a Christmas market as "Islamophobic." Perhaps the ruling coalition of Social Democrat and Green parties is seeking new votes in next month's elections; perhaps it is seeking to pretend away its own massive failure at stopping a terrorist about whom the authorities were warned so many times.

Evidently, the German government does not consider disinformation a problem, so long as it is the German government that is doing it.

Robert Williams is based in the United States.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21270/germany-attack-cover-up

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Arab media releases names of 34 Gaza hostages reportedly set for release - Joanie Margulies, Jerusalem Post Staff

 

by Joanie Margulies, Jerusalem Post Staff

It was unclear how many of the hostages were still alive, with certain family members appearing on separate lists.

 

Visitors at Hostage Square in Tel Aviv. September 25, 2024.

(photo credit: MIRIAM ALSTER/FLASH90)

The Saudi news outlet A-Sharq published on Monday a list of what it claims to be the 34 hostages listed to be released in the first stage of a potential hostage deal.

Earlier, the BBC reported, claiming a Hamas official had shown it the list, that among the 34 hostages listed by Hamas to be released in the first stage of a potential hostage deal are young children, 10 women, and 11 male hostages aged 50-85. 

The families of the hostages and other government bodies have requested the names not be released for the families and their protection. 

It was unclear how many of the hostages were still alive, the British news outlet added.

According to the report, among the hostages on the list are also those who Hamas claims are unwell. 

PMO denies reports that Israel received list of hostages

On Sunday, Reuters reported that Hamas approved a list of 34 hostages presented by Israel to be released in a possible deal. The Prime Minister’s Office denied the report.

A source with knowledge of the hostage deal negotiations also told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday that talks were "progressing slowly" and that Israel did not receive "any list from Hamas regarding the hostages; we don’t know which hostages are alive or what their conditions are.”

The families of hostages responded to the alleged list, expressing dismay.

"The families of the abductees are shaken and upset by the "list" published this morning. We call on the media and the public to show sensitivity and responsibility regarding such and such publications that are still expected to be published until a deal is signed and also during it. The time is ripe for a comprehensive agreement that will return all the abductees - the living for rehabilitation and the murdered and fallen for a proper burial."

They called for all to be brought home immediately. 

The Prime Minister's Office also responded. "This is a 'humanitarian' list that Israel passed on to the mediators several months ago, and which includes women and children, adults over the age of 50, the sick and wounded. No comment was received from Hamas on the status of the abductees on the list. Negotiations are ongoing and we are doing everything we can to return all the abductees, both living and dead."

The PMO has also noted that Israel has not received updates on the status of the abductees on the lists.

Amichai Stein and Hannah Sarisohn contributed to this report. 

Joanie Margulies, Jerusalem Post Staff

Source: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-836241

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

An Absolute Disgrace: Joe Biden Adds to His Shameful Legacy - Richard Truesdell and Keith Lehmann

 

by Richard Truesdell and Keith Lehmann

If you thought awarding Liz Cheney and Bennie Thompson the Presidential Citizens Award was Biden giving the middle finger to America on his way out the door, you ain't seen nothing yet.

 

We watched as Joe Biden (and his handlers) continued to dishonor the Office of the Presidency as he finally exits the political stage in little more than two weeks. Last week, in a clearly partisan effort, he cheapened the prestige of the nation’s second highest civilian honor, the Presidential Citizens Award, awarding it to J6 Committee chair and vice chair Bennie Thompson and Liz Cheney who were complicit in deleting records before the GOP retook control of the House of Representatives in 2022. But on Saturday, he outdid himself with many of his selections for the Presidential Medal of Freedom, our nation’s highest civilian honor.

First, let’s look at the list (in alphabetical order):

José Andrés

Bono

Ashton B. Carter (posthumous)

Hillary Clinton

Michael J. Fox

Tim Gill

Jane Goodall

Fannie Lou Hamer (posthumous)

Earvin Johnson

Robert F. Kennedy (posthumous)

Ralph Lauren

Lionel Messi

Bill Nye

George W. Romney (posthumous)

David M. Rubenstein

George Soros

George Stevens Jr.

Denzel Washington

Anna Wintour

While several on the list are deserving of the honor for their humanitarian efforts (Andres, Bono, Hammer), public service (Kennedy), philanthropy (Fox, Gill, Washington), science (Goodall, Nye), and artistic endeavors (Stevens), several are not. Let’s start with the two most egregious and notorious figures on this list: George Soros (born György Schwartz) and Hillary Clinton.

The Hungarian-born Soros, possibly the largest Democrat and progressive mega-donor in U.S. history, is a hedge-fund investor and currency speculator responsible for breaking the Bank of England in 1992. Since becoming a U.S. citizen in 1961, he has immersed himself in American politics, funding Democrat candidates and far-left prosecutors like Alvin Bragg, Larry Krasner, George Gascón, Chesa Boudin, and dozens of others who have been more concerned with social justice and persecuting Donald Trump than prosecuting violent criminals that threaten everyday Americans. His activities over the past 40 years should be closely examined and investigated by incoming Attorney General Pam Bondi. If it is found that he’s violated any U.S. laws that result in a conviction, he should be stripped immediately of his U.S. citizenship and deported to Hungary, where he is vilified by most Hungarians and will not be welcomed with open arms.

What can we say that has not already been said about career criminal Hillary Clinton, the unsuccessful Democrat presidential candidate in 2016? She has a long history of being one of the most polarizing figures in American politics. Starting as the wife of then-Arkansas governor Bill Clinton with the Whitewater scandal, then as First Lady, where she accepted her husband’s dalliances with interns within the People’s House. She is also responsible, as President Obama’s Secretary of State, for turning Libya into a failed state when she boasted to Democrat activist CBS “journalist” Leslie Stahl, “We came, we saw, he died,” about the killing of Muammar al-Gaddafi. At the time of its broadcast, watching this many accused Clinton of being a psychopath. You decide.

Let’s remember her brazen lawlessness in unilaterally transferring twenty percent of U.S. uranium deposits to Russia in exchange for “charitable donations” to the Clinton Global Initiative. Let’s also remember her purposely destroying emails and government-issued mobile phones in criminal violation of Congressional subpoenas. A reprehensible figure by every measurement standard, Clinton is probably best known for vilifying over a quarter of her fellow Americans with her infamous 2016 “Basket of Deplorables” speech that probably ended any chances of her being elected the first female president. Does Clinton really deserve the Presidential Medal of Freedom? We say… not.

Most of the rest of the list, with few exceptions—George Romney (Mitt’s father) and Robert Kennedy (Robert Jr’s father)—are a collection of Democrat campaign financial bundlers and big-dollar contributors. Some on the list, as with Soros, are not even native-born Americans, like Conde Nast’s Global Editorial Director of Vogue and Chief Content Officer, Anna Wintour. Fashion icon Wintour put a Democrat presidential candidate on the cover of Vogue three weeks before the 2024 election, clearly an in-kind campaign contribution for Kamala Harris. This is in addition to the tens of millions of dollars she’s bundled and raised for the Democrat Party since 2000. If this isn’t selling out the prestige of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, we don’t know what is.

Who is missing from his list? Let’s start with Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, who in 2020 gave almost half a billion dollars to Democrat causes that helped knowingly elect a cognitively challenged president. We didn’t see Barbra Streisand on the list either. How could Dementia Joe (or his puppet masters) miss her? Maybe the next Democrat president, hopefully there will never be one, can further cheapen this award, rendering it utterly meaningless.

The Presidential Medal of Freedom once meant something. Over the years it has been awarded to notable AMERICANS (but you do not need to be an American citizen to receive the award), the likes of John Franklin Enders (Kennedy), Edward R. Morrow (Johnson), Neil Armstrong (Nixon), James A. Michener (Ford), Tennessee Williams (Carter), Jackie Robinson (Reagan), Jimmy Doolittle (Bush), Simon Wiesenthal (Clinton), Pope John Paul II (Bush), John Glenn (Obama), and Antonin Scalia (Trump).

We can speculate that the criteria for Biden choosing this particular group for the award had little to do with actual achievement. Could it be possible that the Presidential Medal of Freedom was issued to those promising to donate to Biden’s presidential library? Looking at the sketchy behavior of this president and his family over the past few decades, we would not rule this out.

Like almost everything he’s touched in his 50+ years of government service, Biden has cheapened the Presidential Medal of Freedom, turning it into a partisan act and cementing his legacy as the most corrupt and divisive president in our country’s 248-year history. Once again, Joe Biden has acted solely in his own (and his family’s) best interests and proven over and over how little regard he has for the American people and the office of the presidency.

Jimmy Carter can truly rest in peace now. When Biden exits office in disgrace on January 20, 2025, he cements his legacy as the worst post-World War Two president, possibly in U.S. history overall. Way to go, Joe!

Richard Truesdell and Keith Lehmann

Source: https://amgreatness.com/2025/01/06/an-absolute-disgrace-joe-biden-adds-to-his-shameful-legacy/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter