Good Gezucht!
+++
NEWS
Google has fired 28 employees who staged in sit-in which was protesting the company’s $1.2 billion cloud contract with Israeli government.
Nine employees were also arrested.
In a note sent to employees the company says: “If you're one of the few who are tempted to think we're going to overlook conduct that violates our policies, think again.”
Googlers,
You may have seen reports of protests at some of our offices yesterday. Unfortunately, a number of employees brought the event into our buildings in New York and Sunnyvale. They took over office spaces, defaced our property, and physically impeded the work of other Googlers.
Their behavior was unacceptable, extremely disruptive, and made coworkers feel threatened. We placed employees involved under investigation and cut their access to our systems. Those who refused to leave were arrested by law enforcement and removed from our offices.
Following investigation, today we terminated the employment of twenty-eight employees found to be involved. We will continue to investigate and take action as needed.
Behavior like this has no place in our workplace and we will not tolerate it. It clearly violates multiple policies that all employees must adhere to - including our Code of Conduct and Policy on Harassment, Discrimination, Retaliation, Standards of Conduct, and Workplace Concerns.
We are a place of business and every Googler is expected to read our policies and apply them to how they conduct themselves and communicate in our workplace. The overwhelming majority of our employees do the right thing. If you're one of the few who are tempted to think we're going to overlook conduct that violates our policies, think again. The company takes this extremely seriously, and we will continue to apply our longstanding policies to take action against disruptive behavior — up to and including termination.
You should expect to hear more from leaders about standards of behavior and discourse in the workplace
Jackie Walker
++++
The Deep State Lies in Wait for Trump
His second term will be much like my time in office if he doesn’t confront the entrenched bureaucracy.
By Liz Truss OPINION: POTOMAC WATCH
With a presidential rematch between Joe Biden and Donald Trump now all but confirmed, the world is focusing on what could be the most consequential election ever. If the disasters of the past three years have taught us anything, it’s that we need a conservative back in the White House. The West is succumbing to challenges from its enemies abroad while being undermined from within by the promotion of leftist ideologies, eco-extremism and Wokeism. A Trump victory would provide much-needed leadership to the Western world.
Will Israel Strike Back at Iran Despite Joe Biden's Opposition?
But even if President Trump is re-elected, his battle will have only begun. Across the West—especially the English-speaking world—there has been a shift of power away from democratically accountable officeholders to unelected bureaucrats and technocrats. The administrative state undermined Mr. Trump’s first term and undermined my tenure as Britain’s prime minister, forcing me out of office after 49 days. I assumed that I would be able to drive through the agenda on which I was elected. How wrong I was. The opaque British bureaucratic state undermined my proposed reforms, and their American equivalents will have Mr. Trump in their sights if he is victorious in November. The deep state will attempt to undercut him even more than it did in his first term.
Conservatives need to understand that winning an election isn’t enough. The winner needs a concerted plan to dismantle the deep state, which seeks its own self-preservation. When I entered Downing Street in September 2022, growth in the British economy had been anemic for years, despite artificially low interest rates that served to accustom government and consumers alike to cheap money and inflation. Tax burdens and energy costs were high, and the expansive welfare state was bloated. The U.K. had left the European Union in 2020, but reams of burdensome laws remained on the British statute book. The economic establishment had bought into the high-tax, high-regulation, big-government European approach and had little appetite for supply-side policies or tax cuts. Too many conservatives went along with the establishment’s push for net zero and high immigration.
As soon as I announced plans to institute a range of supply-side reforms, I was marked by the technocrats for political extinction. On the eve of the publication of our growth plan, the Bank of England raised interest rates, but not by as much as anticipated—a misstep that prompted a fall in the value of the pound, leading to higher yields on U.K. government bonds, known as gilts. The central bank also announced plans to sell £40 billion in gilts that evening, prompting private bond holders to pre-empt the sale by flooding the market with their own gilts.
Rising yields were a problem because of pension funds’ exposure to leveraged liability-driven investment funds, which are highly susceptible to interest rate risk. Due to failures in regulation and oversight, U.K. pension funds were uniquely exposed to the same kind of risk that caused several U.S. banks to collapse in early 2023. The liability-driven investment funds’ leveraged bets on gilt prices began to sour while the Office for Budget Responsibility—a U.K. version of the Congressional Budget Office—leaked its claim that our plans would create a £70 billion “fiscal black hole.” OBR forecasts like this one have consistently been wrong because they underestimate the Laffer curve effect of tax cuts and the benefits of supply-side reforms.
Unelected bureaucrats caused this market turmoil, but elected representatives were blamed. Neither I nor Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng had been given any warning before the liability-driven investment fund situation blew up. When the Bank of England announced it would buy gilts to support the pension funds—a move that everyone knew would prompt investors to unload their government bonds—I knew they had me at gunpoint. We had to ditch our program or risk a market meltdown that would leave the government unable to finance its debt. There should be an independent investigation into what happened, but the establishment would never allow it.
The U.S. economic establishment already is arming against Mr. Trump and his economic program. After the disaster of Bidenomics—with its ballooning subsidies, tax hikes, burdensome regulation and more than $34.6 trillion of debt—a program of supply-side measures like oil and gas exploration, spending cuts and tax reform is desperately needed. In March, CBO Director Phillip Swagel explicitly warned that the mounting U.S. fiscal burden threatened a crisis of the kind that brought me down. Corporate borrowers are also reportedly preparing for market volatility. Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan has warned the federal debt is pushing the economy toward a financial cliff.
This isn’t a fight only to return to fiscal responsibility, but also to return power to the people’s elected representatives. My Republican friends must be ready for the fight of their lives.
Ms. Truss served as Britain’s prime minister in 2022. She is author of “Ten Years to Save the West: Leading the Revolution Against Globalism, Socialism, and the Liberal Establishment,” out Tuesday.
++++
Iran’s Attack Is a Show of Weakness
The initiative has shifted to the Israelis, who need a calibrated response to restore deterrence.
By Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr.
Over the weekend Iran launched a ballistic-missile, drone and cruise-missile attack on Israel from its own soil. The attack was without subterfuge and of a scale well beyond any that preceded it. The strike was indiscriminate in targeting and designed to cause casualties. Belated Iranian protests notwithstanding, this was a “maximum effort.” The Israeli response, aided by the U.S., the U.K. and nations in the region, was largely successful. Iran has demonstrated that it is willing to do anything to further its campaign against Israel’s existence.
There’s some history here. On Sept. 14, 2019, drones launched from bases in western Iran struck oil refineries operated by Saudi Aramco at Abqaiq and Khurais, Saudi Arabia. The damage to global oil production was significant. The Iranians denied culpability, and the profiles their drones used made it easy to avoid the reality of a state-on-state attack. On Jan. 8, 2020, Iranian ballistic missiles, also launched from bases in western Iran, struck Al Asad air base in Iraq. This was a response to the Jan. 3 U.S. strike that killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad. No U.S. troops at the base were killed, and heavy casualties were averted only because commanders on the ground anticipated the attack and repositioned forces accordingly. Iran claimed responsibility for this assault. Both these attacks seemed to represent a major escalation, a crossing of the Rubicon into the territory of attributable state-on-state attacks.
Why has Iran now undertaken what can only be characterized as a desperate attack—one that exposed the weaknesses of its much-touted missiles and drones? The reason is clear. For the past several months, Israel and Iran have engaged in a low-level “dialogue of targets.” Israeli strikes have taken out Iranian targets in Syria, Lebanon and occasionally Iran itself. Iran’s response has been ham-fisted. In the shadow war, Israel has outfought Iran.
The April 1 Israeli strike against Iranian planners in Damascus was the culmination of Tehran’s embarrassment. Taking a page from Russian strategic doctrine, the Iranians tried to escalate to de-escalate, taking a very aggressive action to raise the stakes dramatically. The intention is to cow the opponent into changing its behavior by convincing it that it is at heightened risk. The key to this kind of tactic is actual leverage—a genuine capability that puts the opponent at grave risk.
That hasn’t happened, because it’s apparent that the Iranians are playing a weak hand. For years the ballistic-missile, drone and cruise-missile force has been at the heart of Iran’s strategic deterrence—more important in practical terms than its nuclear program. The attack Sunday morning was poorly executed and a strategic miscalculation. The vulnerability of Iran’s force has been exposed, and the regime is gravely weakened as a result. Israel has been strengthened by a stunning display of military competence, a striking contrast with that seen on Oct. 7.
Another factor is that Lebanese Hezbollah’s involvement was minimal, limited to tactical rocketing into the Golan Heights. This is of enormous strategic significance. The scenario Israeli planners feared most was the “dual axis” missile and drone attack, in which thousands of missiles from Lebanon joined the attackers from Iran. Lebanese Hezbollah is as dedicated as Iran to the destruction of Israel, but it realizes Israel’s ability to wound it badly if it enters the fray. So far Hezbollah has chosen to sit on the sidelines. That made the Iranian attack a manageable problem for Israeli defenders.
For the U.S., the successful defense of Israel validates years of work to create an integrated air and missile defense, an effort that brought together many nations that all recognize the threat of Iran. It also vindicates the decision to move Israel from European Command into Central Command, which covers the rest of the region. The seamless coordination and mutual support this enabled was evident under demanding circumstances.
Iran’s overriding strategic priority is protecting the theocratic regime. Fundamental to this was a conventional missile and drone force that could overpower its neighbors. This failure shakes the regime’s stability. In conducting this latest attack, it has shed the last check on its ambitions. Iran will attack any regional nation anywhere, without pretense or deniability. The downside for Iran’s targets is that once a nation has conducted an attack of this nature, it is politically easier to do it again.
What’s next? The initiative has shifted to the Israelis. The gap between Israeli competence and Iranian aspirations is clear, even to the Iranians, despite their attempts to put a brave face on their failure. Israel’s neighbors will certainly see the effectiveness of its defense. Israel could unleash a violent and decisive counterstrike against Iran.
Some are calling for Israel to destroy the Iranian nuclear enterprise. Now isn’t the time for that. What’s needed is a carefully calibrated response on a scale that reinforces Israeli technical mastery. That would reset deterrence. Informed observers, whatever their sympathies, all know who won this engagement. The hard part, as always, is translating battlefield success into lasting policy advantage and an opportunity for peace. That’s the task for Israel.
Gen. McKenzie, a retired U.S. Marine general, served as commander of U.S. Central Command, 2019-22. He is executive director of the Global and National Security Institute at the University of South Florida and author of “The Melting Point: High Command and War in the 21st Century,” forthcoming in June.
++++
Israel Shouldn’t ‘Take the Win’ Against Iran
It would be political suicide for Benjamin Netanyahu to follow Joe Biden’s advice.
By Walter Russell Mead
“Take the win,” President Biden reportedly advised Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after Iran’s unprecedented missile and drone attacks against Israel sputtered shambolically to an ignominious end.
As the world waits on tenterhooks for Israel’s response, two things seemed clear. It would be political suicide for Mr. Netanyahu to take the president’s advice, and it would be national suicide for any Israeli prime minister to do so. Mr. Biden is primarily worried about his re-election, a cause he conveniently if sincerely conflates with the survival of democracy in the U.S. and of freedom in the world. Israel is worried about something more tangible—the survival of the world’s only Jewish state.
Mr. Biden is a lot smarter about the Middle East today than he was in January 2021, when he was still spouting inanities about isolating Saudi Arabia and pursuing the will o’ the wisp of détente with Iran. Today the president understands that he can’t simply shake hands with Iran and walk away from the Middle East. If the U.S. hopes to step back from a front-line role in the region, it must foster an alliance that can check Iran’s unrelenting and fanatical drive for hegemony. That is why Team Biden dramatically reversed its early policy of making Saudi Arabia a “pariah” and, borrowing some of the core concepts of Donald Trump’s Abraham Accords, made the promotion of an Israel-Saudi alliance a cornerstone of its regional strategy.
This was an intelligent move, as far as it went. Until and unless Iran’s insatiable ambitions can be curbed, nothing but tumult and terrorism awaits the weary people of a region whose fossil fuel riches remain critical to the smooth functioning of the world economy. From an American point of view, assembling a group of American allies to take our place on the front lines at a time when we need to focus more closely on the Indo-Pacific is common sense.
What the president appears not yet to understand is that Iran has become so powerful, and America’s reputation as a source of sound policy and reliable support so weak, that only resolute American backing of our allies can turn the tide. This problem has been decades in the making. George W. Bush’s mismanagement in Iraq removed the one regional power capable of containing Iran on its own—without building an effective replacement. Barack Obama’s feckless Syria policy gave Iran and its new best friend, Russia, a commanding position in the heart of the Middle East. Mr. Trump’s support for the Abraham Accords and tough policies toward Iran pointed in the right direction, but were mostly a case of too little, too late, and too erratic. Mr. Biden’s support for Israel is appreciated in Arab capitals as well as in Jerusalem, but his vacillations with Iran have further strengthened the ayatollahs and undercut America’s much-diminished prestige.
National security adviser Jake Sullivan’s poorly timed Foreign Affairs article last October, hailing what he thought was the greatest regional stability in decades, was the cherry on the sundae of perceived intellectual incompetence by American policymakers in the region. The Washington foreign policy establishment, which former Obama staffer Ben Rhodes called “the Blob,” has never understood the Middle East very well.
From an Arab point of view, there are two things that make Israel valuable at a time of diminished confidence in the U.S. First, Israel sees the common fight against Iran as part of its own fight for survival. It will be a reliable ally because it has no choice. Second, Israel offers the mix of strength and relentlessness without which Iran cannot be stopped. At a time when liberal opinion in the U.S. was elegantly wringing its hands about Israeli ruthlessness in Gaza destroying any possibility of Arab-Israeli cooperation, Jordan and Saudi Arabia leapt to Israel’s defense against the Iranian attacks. The fastest way for Israel to lose friends in the Middle East would be to start thinking like American liberal foreign-policy hands.
This isn’t an ideal situation by any standard, and one may hope that better times will bring nobler views, but people fighting for their survival against an utterly amoral opponent will do what they must. Americans eager to critique what they see as the immorality of the region’s governments should reflect on the part our own poor choices have played in the deterioration of Middle Eastern security to its current abysmal state.
Meanwhile, Mr. Biden will continue trying to save the world by getting re-elected and will evaluate developments abroad by their projected effect on Wisconsin and Michigan. Mr. Netanyahu will have to steer a course between the disastrous alternatives of alienating Mr. Biden by ignoring his preferences or endangering Israel by taking his advice.
++++
The Jan. 6 Riot Reaches the Supreme Court
Did the feds go too far in charging rioters with obstructing Congress under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act?
By The Editorial Board
The people who breached the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, are being held accountable, and attempts to rebrand them as patriotic choirboys are a sign of the bizarre political times. Yet is it unduly stretching the law to prosecute Jan. 6 rioters using the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002?
The Supreme Court will consider this Tuesday in Fischer v. U.S., and rooting for the government to lose requires no sympathy for the MAGA mob. Joseph Fischer says in his brief that he arrived late to the Capitol, spent four minutes inside, then “exited,” after “the weight of the crowd” pushed him toward a police line, where he was pepper sprayed. The feds tell an uglier tale.
Mr. Fischer was a local cop in Pennsylvania. “Take democratic congress to the gallows,” he wrote in a text message. “Can’t vote if they can’t breathe..lol.” The government says he “crashed into the police line” after charging it. Mr. Fischer was indicted for several crimes, including assaulting a federal officer. If true, perhaps he could benefit from quiet time in a prison library reading the 2020 court rulings dismantling the stolen election fantasy.
Sarbanes-Oxley, though? Congress enacted Sarbox, as it’s often called, in the wake of Enron and other corporate scandals. One section makes it a crime to shred or hide documents “corruptly” with an intent to impair their use in a federal court case or a Congressional investigation. That provision is followed by catchall language punishing anybody who “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes” such a proceeding. Now watch, as jurists with Ivy degrees argue about the meaning of the word “otherwise.”
In Mr. Fischer’s view, the point of this law is to prohibit “evidence spoliation,” so the “otherwise” prong merely covers unmentioned examples. The government’s position is that the catchall can catch almost anything, “to ensure complete coverage of all forms of corrupt obstruction.” The feds won 2-1 at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Yet two judges were worried how far this reading would permit prosecutors to go. Judge Justin Walker, who joined the majority, said his vote depended on a tight rule for proving defendants acted “corruptly.”
Judge Gregory Katsas filed the vigorous dissent. The government “dubiously reads otherwise to mean ‘in a manner different from,’ rather than ‘in a manner similar to,’” he argued. The obstruction statute “has been on the books for two decades and charged in thousands of cases—yet until the prosecutions arising from the January 6 riot, it was uniformly treated as an evidence-impairment crime.”
A win for the feds, Judge Katsas warned, could “supercharge comparatively minor advocacy, lobbying, and protest offenses into 20-year felonies.” For example: “A protestor who demonstrates outside a courthouse, hoping to affect jury deliberations, has influenced an official proceeding (or attempted to do so, which carries the same penalty).” Or how about a Congressman (Rep. Jamaal Bowman) who pulls a fire alarm that impedes a House vote?
Special counsel Jack Smith has charged Donald Trump with obstructing a Congressional proceeding, and he says Mr. Trump’s “fraudulent electoral certifications” in 2020 are covered by Sarbox, regardless of what the Supreme Court does in Fischer. The other piece of context is that prosecutors going after Jan. 6 rioters have charged obstruction in hundreds of cases. But if those counts are in jeopardy, don’t blame the Supreme Court.
Presumably many of those defendants could be on the hook for disorderly conduct or other crimes, and the feds can throw the book at them. What prosecutors can’t do is rewrite the law to create crimes Congress didn’t.
++++
Dear Richard
The politically-driven prosecution of Donald Trump in New York is unprecedented and is truly an abomination under the law.
And it's hard to believe that the Left's corruption and weaponization of government in their relentless drive to destroy Donald Trump and re-elect Joe Biden will lead to anything other than a further decline in respect for the rule of law by many Americans who already believe that our legal and justice systems are being swallowed up by politics and partisanship.
That is why, while many conservatives complain about Trump's treatment in New York and by the corrupt Biden Justice Department, Judicial Watch acts!
Sincerely,
Tom Fitton
President
++++
Throw the Anti-American Left Under the Bus Noah Rothman
Posted By Ruth King
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/throw-the-anti-american-left-under-the-bus/
You’re likely to hear a lot about the polls showing that Americans are growing impatient with Israel. Democrats and their media allies seem to have concluded that this sentiment will grow along a straight-line trajectory until a majority have become intractably hostile toward Israel’s defensive war against Hamas. But straight-line trajectories are inherently fallacious. They take no account of exogenous events, such as, for example, Iran’s brazen, multilayered missile and drone attack on Israeli population centers. Indeed, even before that attack, Democratic and media elites had already internalized a misreading of this war and voters’ perceptions of it.
For example, a Pew Research Center poll from late March showed that, while the public is growing weary of watching Israel zealously prosecute its right to self-defense, those same voters also understand that Israel’s casus belli is just while Hamas’s is not. That survey found that only 15 percent of respondents believe that Israel’s reasons for fighting Hamas are “not at all” or “not too” valid. By contrast, 49 percent of respondents don’t believe that Hamas’s aims or cause are valid. Although 34 percent said Israel’s conduct on the ground in Gaza is “completely” or “somewhat” unacceptable, the October 7 massacre that begat this war was seen as an “acceptable” response to Israel’s actions by precisely 4 percent of American adults. Nearly three-quarters of the Americans surveyed rejected the notion that the barbarity unleashed on 10/7 was a legitimate response to the conditions that prevailed in the Gaza Strip.
This dichotomy is something on which America’s center-left elites should reflect amid their ongoing efforts to coddle and mollify what can only be described as a pro-terrorism constituency. That description will surely rankle Israel’s critics, but what else are you supposed to call a protest movement that burns the American flag while flying Hezbollah’s banner high? How else should we regard demonstrators who adorn themselves with keffiyehs and “Hamas-style headbands”? Terrorist groups such as Hamas kill Americans. What are we to conclude about the intentions of those who praise and mimic them?
Do the demonstrators who block major thoroughfares, bridges, and airports, thereby frustrating attempts to address medical emergencies and even risking the prospect of a disaster on a flight takeoff, only want to be heard by their elected officials? Or are their intentions far darker than that? Are we to believe that, when these malcontents chant “Death to America,” what they really mean is that Congress and the president should recalibrate America’s posture toward Israel to strike a finer balance between human-rights concerns and the West’s security priorities in the Middle East? Of course not. When they chant “Death to America,” they mean “Death to America.”
Whose constituency is this? To its credit, the Biden campaign has distanced itself, albeit gingerly, from the antics of the anti-American left. But it remains beholden to a theory of the 2024 campaign that ensures it can only back away so much lest it sacrifice the crucial State of Michigan and, with it, the White House. His party, meanwhile, plays host to federal elected officials who bend over backward to popularize the slogans that reliably precede the murder of Jews. When it placates this wholly unsympathetic and objectively marginal constituency, does the Democratic Party expect the rest of us not to notice?
It’s simply not good enough for Biden and his fellow Democrats to gently chide the anti-American left and move on. Throw them under the bus. Pick one — any will do, as this is a target-rich environment — and make an example of him or her. Democrats are clearly afraid of how America’s restive students would react to that sort of banal majoritarianism. Whatever backlash that effort engenders among the young, indolent, and miseducated — however violent and disruptive it may be — will not come back on the Democrats who were bold enough to express their affection for the United States.
Indeed, such an outcome might even redound to Democrats’ benefit, even if it risks furthering the sense that the party’s governing style invites the chaos and lawlessness that Biden’s presidency was supposed to remedy. This anti-American cohort has made it its intention to physically attack the symbols of Democratic governance. It’s high time the president and his allies summon the courage to defend themselves. In doing so, they might convince their dispirited supporters that the president’s party is not a spent force bereft of self-confidence and a healthy sense of patriotism. The alternative is to allow the provocateurs and agitators in America’s streets to set the terms of the debate and dictate the tempo of events. To allow that to continue is politically suicidal.
++++
Missiles over Jerusalem: Iran's Gambit, Israel's Response By Gregg Roman In this special Iran-Israel War update, we cover the latest developments in the escalating conflict between the two Middle Eastern powers. Iran's unprecedented direct attack on Israel, launching over 300 drones and missiles, marks a major shift in strategy after 40 years of proxy warfare. While Israel's air defenses limited damage this time, the attack highlights Iran's aggression and the high stakes of this shadow war turning hot. We analyze what Iran aimed to achieve, the implications of Israel's response, and the complex dynamics shaping the future of this conflict. Will the West's calls for Israeli restraint embolden Iran's hegemonic ambitions? Can Israel find an effective balance between defense and proactive confrontation? This edition also looks ahead to a post-Khamenei Iran, the prospects for regime change given widespread Iranian opposition, and the myths around Iranian moderation. We examine the roots of Iran's proxy power and how the U.S. and allies can combat it. Finally, we invite you to join the Middle East Forum's exclusive 2024 policy conference, where you can discuss these critical issues with top experts and officials. Get the in-depth analysis and insights you need to understand this pivotal moment in the Iran-Israel conflict - and what it means for the region and the world. Let's dive in. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Closing Thoughts Israel's successful defense this time should not breed complacency. Iran's willingness to directly confront Israel marks a dangerous escalation, and its failure in this instance does not diminish its long-term ambitions or capabilities. The Islamic Republic's pursuit of regional hegemony, backed by its growing arsenal and network of proxies, remains an existential threat to Israel and a destabilizing force in the Middle East. To navigate this perilous landscape, policymakers and the public alike must grasp the full scope of the challenge. This means understanding the roots of Iran's ideology and strategy, the depth of its influence, and the very real prospect of a future under more radical leadership. It means recognizing the limitations of defensive measures and the necessity of proactive, multi-faceted efforts to counter Iran's malign activities. Most importantly, it means mustering the clarity and resolve to confront this threat head-on. The siren song of moderation and the allure of appeasement must not lull us into inaction. As the frog in the pot learned too late, the time to act is now before the water starts to boil. The Middle East Forum remains committed to advancing this vital conversation and to forging strategies that secure the future of the region and the wider world. We hope you'll join us in this critical mission. Until next time, stay informed, engaged, and resolute. The challenges ahead are great, but so, too, are the opportunities to shape a better future for all. Gregg Roman ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The 195th Day of War in Israel By Sherwin Pomerantz The US has approved a potential Israeli Rafah operation in exchange for Israel not conducting counterstrikes on Iran, according to a Thursday report from the Qatari newspaper The New Arab. A senior official told the paper that "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu managed to obtain American approval for a military operation in Rafah, in exchange for [Israel] refraining from carrying out a wide military operation against Iran in response to its recent attack." The Qatar report also noted that Egypt is exemplifying "full readiness and preparedness of [its] forces stationed in northern Sinai, along the 14-kilometer border strip with the Gaza Strip, as part of a plan to deal with the scenario of a ground invasion in Rafah." Speaking about the potential Israeli ground invasion, Egyptian law professor Dr. Ayman Salama stated that any modification in the military situation requires Egypt's approval, "and Israel will not be able to establish buffer zones on the Egyptian-Israeli border or modify the security annex of the peace treaty between the two countries under the pretext of urgent security needs in cases of direct threats." Regarding the humanitarian concerns in Gaza, as the United States and other countries pressure Israel to increase food aid to Gaza, Israeli officials familiar with the situation say Gaza has been overwhelmed by food aid. Israeli officials harshly criticize American representatives, led by Ambassador David Schenker, accusing them of echoing the lie about “starvation in Gaza.” “There is no food shortage in Gaza, and there never was,” said an Israeli official familiar with the details. “The stores are full, the markets are bursting with goods, fruits, vegetables, shawarma, pitas—there is everything. Do you know why they no longer loot convoys? Because there is no shortage. The quantities entering are not normal.” Recently, COGAT Commander Maj. Gen. Ghassan Alian issued an unusual statement: “Israel does not constitute a bottleneck when it comes to providing humanitarian aid. The U.N. needs to do the job it is charged with and do it properly.” Despite this data, last week UN officials told the American Jewish Committee (AJC) that “there is an immediate risk of starvation, for most if not all 2.2 million people in Gaza.” This, despite the fact that in the three previous days, around 300 trucks entered the Strip per day. In the continuing attempt to deal with anti-Semitism on campus, Columbia University’s president, its two board co-chairs and a co-chair of its anti-Semitism taskforce testified before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on Wednesday about Jew-hatred on campus since Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack. Members of the House committed asked Dr. Minouche Shafik, Columbia’s president, about Joseph Massad, a tenured professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history, who wrote an article on Oct. 8 describing the Hamas massacre as a “stunning victory” that was “awesome. “I am appalled by what he said,“ Shafik said. “He has been spoken to.” Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) was incredulous that Massad continues to teach and that a “talking to” was the extent of his punishment The hearing is part of the House committee’s investigation into anti-Semitism on college campuses in the wake of Oct. 7. In December, it grilled the presidents of Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology about what actions they’ve taken to combat Jew-hatred. Regarding the hostages, Time magazine on Wednesday featured Rachel Goldberg-Polin, the mother of 23-year-old Hamas captive Hersh Goldberg-Polin, in its 2024 list of the 100 most influential people in the world. Goldberg-Polin appeared in the “Leaders” section of the list, which also includes Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani and Andrii Yermak, head of the Office of the President of Ukraine. “I want to thank Time for my inclusion on the TIME100 and for recognizing the significance and gravity of the hostage crisis and the need for the world to advocate on their behalf, until each one is returned home,” said Goldberg-Polin. Since the events on October 7th Rachel has become one of the most emblematic figures in the fight to bring the hostages home. She was invited to speak at U.N. headquarters in New York and Geneva, and met with world leaders including U.S. President Joe Biden, Pope Francis in Rome and U.S. entrepreneur Elon Musk. I am particularly proud of what she has done for keeping the issue of the hostages on the front page as I knew the Polon family well during the 20 years I lived in Chicago. I join with people of conscience everywhere in recognizing her and her husband Jon’s courage and determination during an indescribably difficult journey which still has no end in sight. May their son Hersh and all those still held captive be released soon. ++++ Consul Report Edited:
|
No comments:
Post a Comment