Our Friday News Analysis | What the World Reads Now!

Iranians burn Israeli and U.S. flags at a rally in Tehran on October 8, 2024.Credit: AFP

 

Listen to the Podcast Here (21 minutes, 34 seconds)

 

Host Yossi Melman, Haaretz Columnist
Strategic and Intelligence Expert
HAARETZ ISRAEL NEWS | PODCASTS
9 October 2024

 

The U.S. has strongly cautioned Israel against targeting Iran's nuclear facilities and oil fields in an expected retaliatory attack for the 181 ballistic missiles launched last week. On the Haaretz Podcast, strategic and intelligence expert and Haaretz columnist Yossi Melman argues that such targets should be "off limits and out of bounds" for any retaliatory attack, and not only because of the American objections.

 

Israel should limit its response to military installations such as the "depots of long-range missiles threatening Israel, the headquarters of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and communication command centers and air defense systems," says Melman.

 

Melman also says that hitting Iran's oil fields and potentially paralyzing the world's oil market - if Iran strikes back at Saudi oil fields - "is a perilous game."

 

History has shown that the Iranians can "sustain a long, long and bloody war," and Israel, despite its military might, remains a small and vulnerable country, already weary from a year of conflict.

 

People pose for pictures at the site of the remains of an Iranian missile in the Negev desert in Israel on October 3, 2024. Credit: AFP

 

"Let's assume that Iran starts targeting Israel In retaliation, firing two missiles a day. Every day, Israelis would have to go to the shelters twice a day," he said. "What is more important than when and how Israel will react to Iran is what Israeli leaders are thinking when it comes to how to end this war, not just against Iran, but also in Gaza and against Hezbollah in Lebanon."

 

Also, on the podcast, Melman discusses the deep contrast between the "colossal failure" of Israel's vaunted intelligence services before October 7 and the way they have recently "salvaged their image and reputation" in recent months in their penetration of both Hezbollah and Iran and execution of "impressive" operations.

 

"Even within the Israeli intelligence community, they cannot explain this huge, huge gap between their performance on October 7 and their performance during the war," he says.

 

At the same time, he warns, "We need to put it into perspective. Israeli intelligence is excellent, but at the end of the day - it is just a tool" meant to support war goals and diplomatic efforts.

 

What is the Side of the Story that is Not Yet Decisive? Edited by Abraham A. van Kempen.

 

 

EDITORIAL | Deterrence Will Save the Day

 

By Abraham A. van Kempen

10 October 2024

 

Relax! There won’t be a World War III any time soon. Nuclear craters don’t belong in a Western-dominated, rule-based world order. The 10-nation BRICS+ countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and Ethiopia—must transform themselves from an economic community to a defense alliance, precisely the way NATO evolved from the European Economic Community (EEC), also known as the Common Market. “You touch one of us, you’re dead meat” is the type of deterrence that will save the day.

 

It is time to imagine new rules in this expanded (BRICS+ and NATO) global rule-based world order. The rules of neo-colonialism no longer apply: 

• Rule 1: What is mine is mine.
• Rule 2: What is yours is mine also.
• Rule 3: If you’re not for us, you’re against us.
• Rule 4: You better do what we tell you, or else.
• Rule 5: It’s our way or the highway – No room for multipolarity.

The world has become an open society. Everywhere, people are on their smartphones. We’ve never seen anything like this. People know what’s going on. The world today is no longer the same as yesterday. Someday, diplomacy will supersede deterrence. We must first learn to trust. Trust is the thrust.

You reap what you sow.

 

 

THE US HAS NEVER GIVEN AS MUCH MILITARY SUPPORT TO ISRAEL AS IT DID LAST YEAR

 

An Israeli M109 howitzer, a piece of artillery, near the Gaza-Israel border. Photo Jack Guez/AFP

 

By Karlijn Saris
NRC The Netherlands
7 oktober 2024

 

Never before has the United States sent as much money, weapons, and other military support to Israel in one year as it has since October 7 last year. This amounts to at least $17.9 billion in financial support for the Israeli military as well as donations of discarded American equipment and weapons. The leading American Brown University writes this in research published on Monday. The researchers did not include the recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

 

Israel has been the largest recipient of American financial aid since its founding in 1948. According to the study, more than $250 billion has flowed to Israel since 1959, but never before has so much money gone to Israel annually as last year.

 

According to the researchers, it was impossible to gain complete insight into US military spending on Israel, in contrast to the well-documented expenditures in Ukraine. “So the $17.9 billion is an incomplete figure,” said the researchers, who also mention how the Biden administration “is making efforts to conceal the full amount of military aid and the type of weapons supplied through bureaucratic maneuvers.”

 

40,000 targets in Gaza struck

 

American support has allowed Israel to wage a bloody war in Gaza — and now in Lebanon. A year after Hamas's invasion on October 7, Israel says it has hit more than 40,000 "targets" in the Gaza Strip and bombed 4,700 tunnels. Since the start of the war, Israel says 726 Israeli soldiers have been killed, half of whom were killed in the Hamas attack on October 7.

 

The Israeli bombings in Gaza have cost the lives of at least 42,000 Palestinians in one year, more than a third of whom are women or children. The Palestinian Ministry of Health reported this. At least 1,400 people have been killed in Lebanon in the past two weeks. Israel says many Hamas and Hezbollah fighters are among those killed. More than 800 Hezbollah fighters are said to have been killed in Lebanon, and more than two hundred Hamas commanders in Gaza. International news agencies and NRC cannot verify this in all cases.

 

According to Israel, the high number of civilian casualties in both Gaza and Lebanon is because Hamas and Hezbollah use civilians as living shields and hide in (tunnels under) schools and hospitals. Israel does not provide conclusive evidence for this.

 

 

VIEW | COL. DOUGLAS MACGREGOR: ISRAEL, AFTER A YEAR OF SLAUGHTER

 

Judge Napolitano – Judging Freedom

 

Watch the Video Here (28 minutes, 12 seconds)

 

Host Judge Andrew Napolitano
9 October 2024

 

@fato9583
This is an Iranian woman from Tehran listening to you! Thank you for telling us the truth.

 

@user-bw7oe7gf9p
Never forget the brave men who lost their lives and those who were wounded onboard the USS Liberty.

 

@deez3913
It's sick that no other "reporters" are asking the same questions! The "press" is complicit.

 

@radiantmind8729
The young man is right. People are tired of the bullshit.

 

@TheNaturalust
Col. MacGregor doesn’t suffer fools. Lots of respect for this man.

 

@Rubein-h7y
I am just back from Business in UAE and Qatar. There is a cold reception toward American and British business. Chinese, Indian, and Russian companies are increasingly seen as very active and welcomed with warm reception.

 

 

VIEW | AMB. CHAS FREEMAN: IS ISRAEL ITS OWN WORST ENEMY?

 

Judge Napolitano – Judging Freedom

 

Watch the Video Here (30 minutes, 24 seconds)

 

Host Judge Andrew Napolitano
9 October 2024

@miguelmansururpi671
Ambassador Freeman is a gentleman and a scholar. He was precise and humble in his delivery. Thank you for inviting him to judge.

 

@gerry4281
This man calls it like it is. He should be president, not the idiots we currently have in the USA or UK.

 

@jasonwright8546
"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the Heir to the Throne of the Kingdom of Idiots fights a war on seven fronts."- Amb Londo Molari.

 

@jrobin1836
The wisest and most articulate guest in your stable of wise and articulate guests.

 

@Iguf5ctub6f
I am beginning to suspect that if these people do not finally come to their senses and calm down, this whole mess they have caused may end for them in the same way as the fight against German Nazizm ultimately ended. The similarity between them is already becoming almost entirely indistinguishable.

 

 

VIEW | FORMER CIA AND ARMY INTEL OFFICERS PHIL GIRALDI – WHO CALLS THE SHOTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST?

 

Judge Napolitano – Judging Freedom

 

Watch the Video Here (25 minutes, 38 seconds)

 

Host Judge Andrew Napolitano
9 October 2024

 

@berndreinemuth3519
Phil Giraldi is a good human being, a good analyst, and a good US citizen. Greetings from Germany.

 

@Jean-rg4sp
Phil Giraldi is worth listening to. He clearly understands how foreign policy works.

 

@HypnosisNow8
The military-aged Jews that fled Israel are astounding. The Jews don't fight their own battles; they have others do it while they sit comfortably in the USA so the US military can fight their war. Amusing!

 

 

ANALYSIS | PAY THE DEVIL: HOW THE US WILL FORCE EUROPE TO PAY FOR ITS MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

 

The outcome of the American election won’t change anything because the course is already set.

 

Supporters of Ukraine celebrate after the House of Representatives passed Ukraine and Israel aid bills, Washington, DC, April 20, 2024. © Getty Images / Getty Images

 

By Andrey Sushentsov
Program Director at the Valdai Club.
HomeWorld News
5 Oct, 2024 21:34

 

A series of unprecedented events have marked the American presidential campaign of 2024. These include lawsuits against one candidate and relatives of the sitting president, assassination attempts against Donald Trump, and, finally, the unprecedented situation of Joe Biden being forced out of the race by his party. All of this has made the election marathon an extraordinary event.

 

Meanwhile, domestic politics in the US is spilling over into the rest of the world, and it’s helping fuel the growing dissatisfaction of the countries representing the world’s majority with the intense attempts by Washington to maintain its leadership. However, we should not read too much into the vote because the policy of seeking to preserve American dominance remains the primary strategy of both candidates.

 

The neoconservative group remains quite prominent in the ruling Democratic Party, whose members’ worldview is built around the idea of power as the only tool for maintaining US leadership. This position doesn’t depend on personal attitudes and beliefs but is derived from the status they occupy in the political mechanism. The then-Senator Biden, for example, once proposed a large number of constructive initiatives in Congress. Among other things, he opposed NATO membership for the Baltic states to the point where his party colleagues accused him of being too peace-loving in his foreign policy.

 

Once in the White House, Biden strictly followed the usual American logic of global leadership. The defense budget under his administration broke all records of recent decades. The consistency of US foreign policy practice regarding deterrence strategy towards geopolitical rivals allows us to assert that the structural confrontation with Russia and China will continue regardless of the election outcome. The dynamics of this confrontation – in Ukraine and around Taiwan – will be determined by the military budget, a draft of which has already been developed and will be approved before the inauguration of his successor.

 

Against the backdrop of the election campaign, it is exciting to see how much sharper the rhetoric has become and how it has been filled with catchy, ‘workable’ initiatives. Former Secretary of State Michael Pompeo’s plan for a “forced peace” in Ukraine, which proposes, among other things, that Kyiv be brought into NATO on an accelerated basis “so that European allies will bear the burden of its defense,” has been well received. This scenario would result in a direct military conflict between NATO and Russia, which is unlikely. Such statements, which do not demonstrate a systemic understanding of the situation, need not be long-term in principle.

 

Their function is to mobilize hawks in the establishment and among the electorate to show that a forced escalation of the conflict is one possible scenario. As secretary of state, Pompeo established himself as a man prone to making high-profile statements that didn’t culminate in large-scale actions. Nevertheless, his quote is worth considering in the context that no political force in the US would see the outcome of the Ukraine crisis as an opportunity for reconciliation with Russia.

 

On the one hand, a continuation will allow Washington to mobilize European NATO members to increase defense spending to a new target of 3% of GDP. In essence, this means more Western Europeans purchasing American weapons and thus supporting the US military-industrial complex. On the other hand, active support for Ukraine allows Russia to be drawn deeper and deeper into an expensive military campaign, thus solving the problem of deterrence without confrontation.

 

The collision of interests between Washington and Kyiv is noteworthy here. The Ukrainian government, well aware that its resources have been exhausted, feverishly tries to cling to any chance of remaining at the top of the Western coalition’s priorities and often—as in Kursk—acts instead opportunistically. By offering the West a visible military success, Kyiv hoped to force it to become directly involved in the conflict. The Americans see this impulse from Ukraine but are not interested in such a scenario.

 

Washington needs Ukraine as a proxy that it can use for as long as possible. The country’s usefulness as an instrument of US foreign policy suggests that the US-Russian crisis will be protracted. At the same time, the upward trajectory of the American defense budget will not change, regardless of the election's outcome. Thus, Russian foreign policy and military planning are based on maintaining the present military conditions and continuing the strategic rivalry with the US, regardless of who the next American president is.

 

 

FARHAD IBRAGIMOV | WILL THERE BE A FULL-SCALE WAR BETWEEN ISRAEL AND IRAN?

 

Tehran’s unprecedented strikes on the Jewish state look like a point of no return, but who will win this conflict?

 

Missiles launched from Iran towards Israel are seen in the West Bank city of Nablus on Tuesday, 1 October 2024. © AP Photo/Majdi Mohammed

 

By Farhad Ibragimov
Expert, lecturer at the Faculty of Economics of RUDN University, visiting lecturer at the Institute of Social Sciences of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
HomeWorld News
3 October 2024

 

On the evening of October 1, Iran launched a missile strike against Israel, described by the Jewish state’s Foreign Ministry as unprecedented. Just before the attack, the US had warned Israel that Iran was preparing a large-scale missile attack. This warning came less than 24 hours after the Israeli army initiated a “limited ground operation” in southern Lebanon aimed at destroying the infrastructure of Hezbollah, a group that Tehran backs. The danger turned out to be confirmed – according to media reports, Iran fired approximately 400 missiles at Israel.

 

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said Israel would face severe consequences if it retaliated. In response, the IDF vowed to strike Iran “at a time and place” of its choosing. Tehran claimed the attack was retribution for the assassinations of Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah and Hamas Political Bureau Chairman Ismail Haniyeh. Iran’s permanent representative to the UN added that the strike was legitimate retaliation for violations of Iran’s sovereignty (the attack on Haniyeh occurred in Iran’s capital, Tehran).

 

Iran waited nearly two months to respond to Haniyeh’s assassination, and during this time, many people wondered whether Tehran would avenge the death of its political ally. The time for action had come, and with one strike, Iran addressed two issues that troubled many people both within and outside the country. Iran wants to avoid being pulled into a larger war – not because it fears Israel, but because, unlike the latter, it recognizes that in an apocalyptic scenario, there would be no victors. However, West Jerusalem is confident that the confrontation with Iran won’t cost much.

 

US officials told the Washington Post that they believe Iran is not seeking a larger war with Israel despite the missile strike on October 1. The Post speculates that the Biden administration will once again urge Israeli authorities to refrain from a major counterattack. Bloomberg, however, believes that while Iran’s latest attack was more potent than its strike in April, it was an even “bigger mistake.” The publication’s analysts believe that the attack demonstrated Iran’s weakness and showed that it lacks both the capability and the desire to deliver a significant retaliatory blow and is merely a “paper tiger.”

 

Nonetheless, the October 1 missile strike was neither unexpected nor surprising. A similar incident occurred in April, though the attack and its aftermath were less significant. At that time, for the first time in history, Iran launched an assault on Israel from its territory, employing drones and missiles in response to what it deemed an unjustified Israeli airstrike on its consulate in Damascus, which killed 11 Iranian diplomats and two IRGC generals.

 

Israeli officials attempted to justify their actions by claiming the people who died were linked to Hamas but failed to present convincing evidence. Then-Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi warned that Tehran’s following response would be even harsher if Israel “didn’t calm down.” Iran wanted to quell the brewing scandal that could quickly escalate into a larger war, hoping that Israel would cool down. At the same time, Tehran took the opportunity to assess the situation and prepare for a possible escalation. A month later, Raisi died in a plane crash, and Iran’s new president, Masoud Pezeshkian, expressed a desire to reset relations with the West. When Iranians refer to the West, they primarily mean European countries rather than the US, believing Europe might be more open to negotiations. This could help stabilize Iran’s economy, which has adapted to decades of sanctions yet continues to face challenges.

 

However, given the current situation in the region, Pezeshkian and the Iranian establishment understand that national security issues and the country’s political reputation outweigh any immediate economic considerations. It’s no coincidence that the Iranian president has accused the US and EU of deceit, as they failed to keep their promise of a truce should Tehran choose not to retaliate for the assassination of Haniyeh. However, it is clear that Israel is not about to stop, and the West disregards what is happening.

 

Over the past week, Iran has been actively discussing how to respond to Nasrallah’s assassination. Even those circles that usually call for dialogue with the West have posed uncomfortable questions. It was also the assassination of Nasrallah, rather than the death of Haniyeh, that triggered Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to order a retaliatory strike.

 

Khamenei and his allies believe that failing to retaliate for the assassination of their critical political ally could severely damage Iran’s reputation among its allies and potential supporters. In other words, Tehran resolved to respond in a way that would allow it to maintain its dignity without igniting a full-scale war.

 

However, tensions are undeniably escalating, and Israel may respond. The real question now is how far Israel will go. The Israeli foreign minister’s remarks about Tehran crossing a “red line” suggest that West Jerusalem is not ruling out a direct declaration of war against Iran. On the other hand, can Israel effectively manage a war on two fronts, considering that many issues remain unresolved in Gaza?

 

Almost a year has passed since the tragic events of October 7, yet Hamas still holds Israeli hostages that could have been released long ago. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s circle is unwilling to negotiate. Although Israel has eliminated almost all of Hezbollah’s command structure and part of the Hamas leadership, this does not mean that it has achieved victory over these groups. Both Hamas and Hezbollah are no longer just political parties – they have become ideologies that resonate with many people who live by their principles. And it is tough to defeat an ideology, mainly when it is externally funded.

 

In any case, a direct conflict between Iran and Israel poses a risk of a dangerous escalation that may push the entire Middle East to the brink of catastrophe. With its formidable military strength and likely nuclear arsenal, Israel represents a severe threat to Iran, and this may lead to a large-scale military confrontation with unpredictable consequences. Moreover, engaging in military operations abroad could trigger internal instability within Iran.

 

The opposition may seize this opportunity to criticize the government, mainly if such interventions result in substantial losses for Iranian troops. Military campaigns would also require significant financial resources, which Iran may lack due to ongoing economic sanctions and declining oil revenues. These financial strains would further exacerbate Iran’s economic woes.

 

Finally, we must also consider the complex situation in neighboring countries. The regional conflict has flared up on multiple fronts, with alarming reports coming from Palestine and Yemen, suggesting that a larger war may be unavoidable. A confrontation could ignite a broader conflict involving numerous actors, including Syria, Iraq, and possibly countries in the Persian Gulf. Türkiye and Pakistan are also likely to get involved. The global energy market would be severely impacted, and the security of vital maritime routes could be threatened, potentially leading to skyrocketing energy prices and overall economic instability.

 

The conflict between Iran and Israel is also bound to attract the attention of global powers. The US, which has historically sided with Israel, will feel compelled to support its “ally.” However, with the upcoming presidential elections, the White House isn’t very enthusiastic about getting entangled in Netanyahu’s political games, especially given the mixed feelings many Democrats have towards the Israeli prime minister.

 

Despite US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s remarks about America’s unwavering support for Israel, the reality is more complicated. While the US might assist Israel, it’s not enthusiastic about “saving” Netanyahu.

 

It’s no coincidence that, on the one hand, Netanyahu wants to provoke Iran to engage in a direct war, which would leave Washington with no other choice but to intervene, but on the other hand, he hopes that Donald Trump will win the US presidential election and support Israel – a scenario that is quite uncertain.

 

Ultimately, we may only say that whichever side acts with the most wisdom and consistency will emerge as the victor in this confrontation.

 

 

THE WEST ISN’T BUYING ZELENSKY’S ‘VICTORY PLAN’. SO WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

 

The Ukrainian leader has tough choices; if he makes the wrong ones, the situation may spiral out of control.

 

Vladimir Zelensky at the UN, New York, September 25, 2024. © Getty Images / Getty Images

 

By Vitaly Ryumshin
Gazeta.Ru political analyst
HomeRussia & FSU
7 October 2024

 

From Ukraine’s perspective, the military confrontation with Russia appears to have finally reached a stalemate. Vladimir Zelensky’s latest diplomatic tour, aimed at shaking up support for Kyiv in the West, has brought no breakthroughs. And the future of the conflict is now very much up in the air.

 

The Ukrainian leadership's hopes have revolved around a so-called ‘victory plan.’ The document's title should speak for itself—it’s Kyiv’s strategy for defeating Russia, consisting of four or five points that are not entirely comprehensible. In any case, Zelensky went to the United States last week to present it.

 

During the negotiations, however, it became clear that Ukraine and the West had very different strategy ideas. The Americans and Western Europeans expected Kyiv to present them with a clear vision of victory and a roadmap for achieving it. Instead, the Ukrainians brought a list of “demands” that the US and EU should fulfill so Kyiv could eventually negotiate from a stronger position.

 

Zelensky insisted that implementing all these points, combined with the Kursk operation and permission to attack Russia with long-range weapons, would help tip the scales in Ukraine’s favor. However, according to Western insiders, what the decision-makers saw didn’t impress them. They considered some of the points to be a repetition of previous demands, adding nothing new to the current dynamics of the conflict. And some of the proposals were considered dangerous by the West. This applies, in particular, to the strikes in Russia touted by Kyiv.

 

As a result, the ‘victory plan’ received a resounding ‘no,’ and Zelensky left the US with no hope of ending the conflict on his terms. Western media are already writing that he has been left alone with Russia and his internal problems. But is this true, and does Ukraine have possible alternatives?

 

According to Zelensky, Kyiv has its own ‘Plan B’—to continue fighting as before, with limited Western aid and instead relying more on domestic resources. Of course, Ukraine will have to go into a defensive posture and try to hold out. The question is, for how long and to what end?

 

They can try to wait for a change in the political climate in the West. For example, after the November elections, Kamala Harris could come to power in Washington, and her administration may take a more decisive stance on the Ukrainian conflict. Of course, the Western Europeans will have to follow America’s lead.

 

A ‘black swan’ event could also occur, causing Russia to collapse independently. Such a development is unlikely and difficult to predict, but Ukraine has been waiting for this since December last year.

 

In other words, the most realistic goal of ‘Plan B’ is to survive until the beginning of next year and decide what to do next. Kyiv should have enough resources for that. Zelensky consolidated his power by cracking down on the parliamentary opposition, removing opponents from the power vertical, and denying the West any leverage over him. The Ukrainian armed forces are in a chronic crisis, but the front is not collapsing. Disillusionment with the government’s policies is growing in Ukrainian society, but the majority are still unwilling to compromise with Russia.

 

For Zelensky, the most important thing is to assess the situation correctly and not mistime his moves. If the political situation doesn’t improve and no ‘black swans’ occur, the Ukrainian authorities must find answers to complex questions.

 

How will they deal with the downbeat mood in Ukrainian society? How can the army achieve new victories when the core of motivated veterans is running low and is being replaced by demoralized and poorly trained draftees? What can be done about the Kursk operation, which is becoming more trouble than it’s worth? How to compensate for the apparent lack of supplies from abroad? How to motivate the West to stay in the game for ‘as long as it takes’?

 

This is a partial list of the problems Zelensky will have to solve. And it is far from certain that the result of his travails will not be a ‘shameful’ peace with Russia, which is now so categorically rejected in Kyiv. On the contrary, it is highly likely that if Kyiv delays a decision on negotiations, its peace agreement will become even more ‘shameful.’

 

And that brings us to the third option. What if they don’t wait for better terms and start negotiations now? The West will undoubtedly support such a decision – its leaders are increasingly coming to the idea that it is time to close up shop and have even conjured up a formula of “territory in exchange for NATO.”

 

But Russia may not like it. The Kremlin’s primary goal in Ukraine is not territorial gains but the beginning of a strategic dialogue with the West, which would lead to an end to NATO’s eastward expansion. The West and Kyiv either do not yet want to accept this or don’t understand the Kremlin’s motives. But if they are serious about dialogue, Moscow’s interests will have to be taken into account. Otherwise, any peace initiative will be doomed to failure.

 

 

VIEW EXCERPTS | VIKTOR ORBÁN AND URSULA VON DER LEYEN CLASH IN FIERY DEBATE AT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT! WHO WINS

 

Viktor Orbán and Ursula von der Leyen clashed head-on during a fiery debate at the European Parliament on Wednesday. Both leaders outlined opposing visions for Europe's future, revealing their intense dislike for each other.

 

Watch the Video Here (5 minutes, 33 seconds)

 

EU Debates | Debates.tv
9 October 2024

 

Russia's war on Ukraine, how best to tackle Europe's loss of competitiveness issue, and the rise in irregular migration were among the many areas of contention between the two.

 

The Hungarian premier dismissed the EU's response to the war as "poorly planned and poorly implemented" and called on the bloc to resume communications with the Kremlin, something he attempted to do in a controversial visit to Moscow in July.

 

               "The European Union has mistaken policy regarding this war," he told MEPs on Wednesday morning. "If we want to win, we must change this losing strategy."

 

 

RACHEL MARSDEN | TRUMP IS MAKING A MISTAKE THAT COULD COST HIM THE PRESIDENCY

 

The Republican is supposed to be anti-war and anti-interventionist but keeps making a glaring exception for Israel.

 

Republican presidential nominee former U.S. President Donald Trump. © Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

 

By Rachel Marsden (rachelmarsden.com)
Columnist, political strategist, and host of independently produced talk shows in French and English.
HomeWorld News
9 October 2024

 

When Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky recently stood next to Donald Trump in search of support against Russia, looking like a kid being chewed out by the school principal, the former US president reminded him that “it takes two to tango.”But, when it comes to Israel, Trump only sees a soloist minding its own business and inexplicably eliciting the wrath of its neighbors. And he can’t seem to shut up about it.

 

That isn’t what his base signed up for.

 

On the anniversary of the events of October 7, 2023, when Hamas fighters from Gaza attacked Israeli civilians at an adjacent music festival following years of anti-Palestinian oppression, Trump had a variety of options. His base expects him mainly to butt out and focus on problems that affect the daily lives of Americans – not all of whom live in Israel, contrary to perception.

 

Trump fancies himself such a peacemaker on Ukraine that he’s said he could resolve that conflict in an instant. He has no ambition for the Middle East. Instead, he threw on a yarmulke and stood beside some giant tablets with Hebrew inscriptions, and riffed about how he would “remove the Jew haters” if elected in November and how the “bond between the United States and Israel is strong and enduring” and that he would ensure that it was “closer than it ever was before.”

 

Trump called on Israel to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites. “Isn’t that what you’re supposed to hit? I mean, it’s the biggest risk we have, nuclear weapons,” Trump said at a recent rally, ignoring the fact that nuclear weapons have a magical way of inciting respectful behavior all around, in the same way, that Trump’s beloved Second Amendment does in the US.

 

That remark alone places Trump in a more pro-Israel and pro-war posture than the Biden administration, which has explicitly objected to Israel attacking Iranian nuclear facilities. He’s also more aggressively pro-Israel than his Democratic opponent, Vice-President Kamala Harris, who at least routinely pays lip service to the need to protect Palestinian civilians in light of Israeli bombardments and glaringly dodged the question when asked whether Israel is even an ally.

 

Who is Trump even trying to appeal to? The establishment? Why even bother? He has long lost their support on everything else, and this certainly isn’t bringing them back aboard. Republican neocons? Same thing.

 

Indeed, it is not his “MAGA” base, whose position is non-interventionist and in favor of butting out of tiffs between countries on the other side of the planet. No shortage noticed Trump’s October 7 pandering and announced on social media something along the lines of, “That’s it, I’m out.”

 

Maybe he’s trying to charm American voters, more generally? A new Pew Research survey published this month found that just 31% of them have confidence in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with 75% of them now concerned that US forces will somehow end up getting dragged into the melee. A YouGov poll has found that just 33% of Americans sympathize with Israel over Palestinians in the Gaza conflict. A Gallup poll from March also found that a majority of US voters oppose Israel’s actions in Gaza. And that was even before it kicked off similar action against Syria, Lebanon, and “Hezbollah pagers” exploding in the vicinity of civilians.

 

What does Trump honestly think that American voters care more about seeing their tax cash blown on foreign wars like the one he’s ginning up right now by talking like he’s a trainer exciting his fighter in the corner of a boxing ring – or antisemitism? Americans are more concerned about anti-Muslim discrimination, according to a Pew Research poll from April. Yet Trump went on about how he was going to “remove the Jew haters” if elected. What does he even mean by that? Is anyone whose position is just to let Israel sort out its problems without dragging the entire world into a potential third-world war considered a hater?

 

The biggest problem with Trump’s stance is arguably that supporters of his anti-war posture really can’t figure out what’s going on with him here. You can’t be anti-war except for when it comes to Israel. They see Trump’s passion on this specific issue and how it contrasts so drastically with Harris’ more neutral demeanor, to the point that it risks handing her a wedge issue to pry some Republican or Independent voters away – particularly those who might be skeptical about Trump’s motives. Harris’s position is just classic Washington establishment, which is bad enough. But Trump, in contrast, seems inexplicably psyched about Israeli warfare.

 

Perhaps the most reasonable explanation can be looking at Trump’s campaign sponsors. Mogul Sheldon Adelson was described by Politico in 2021 as the “mega-donor who underwrote the GOP’s pro-Israel shift.” Having passed away that same year, his widow, Israeli-born Miriam, “gave President George W. Bush grief over then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s efforts to restart the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.”

 

In moving the US embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv, Trump did what Adelson had long wanted. At the time, it seemed like a lot of unnecessary drama. And you have to wonder how much more has already been bankrolled, locked, and loaded in anticipation of Trump’s return to office.

 

NBC News has referred to the “Adelson primary” – a traditional process by which GOP primary candidates met with the mogul to win his favor and cash—the New York Times earlier this year evoked his widow’s “$100 million plan to elect Trump” through political action committee donations. Trump awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2018. Indeed, it had nothing to do with the $20 million in donations to his campaign in 2016, despite only reportedly backing him beginning a couple of months before the vote.

 

During a campaign event over the summer, Trump introduced Miriam Adelson and referenced the award that he gave her, suggesting that it’s equivalent to the Congressional Medal of Honor for wounded soldiers, except better, because “she’s a healthy, beautiful woman,” unlike soldiers “in terrible shape because bullets have hit them so many times or they’re dead.” I'm not sure precisely what millions in campaign donations buy folks nowadays. Still, presumably, it’s something more than an attempt at flattery that wouldn’t have even made it onto a greeting card sold at the dollar store.

 

According to Israeli media outlet i24 News, Trump flipped out over the summer because he didn’t feel that he was getting enough cash from Adelson’s widow, with his assistant reportedly calling her staffers “Republicans in name only.”

All this would explain why he’s upped the volume on Adelson’s single cause in the campaign's final stretch – the same time Trump scored all the Adelson cash that contributed to his first election win.

 

In any case, it’s a bad look. It feels like something is glaringly off, and there’s a lack of transparency as to what’s behind it all. It’s no secret that establishment politicians like Harris cater to the military-industrial complex, which Trump routinely denounces. But Trump is raising the possibility among his supporters that there’s something even potentially more shady than that lurking behind his pandering. And the risk he takes in persisting with it is that voters could either stay home or decide to vote for the devil they know.

 

 

VIEW | AL JAZEERA INVESTIGATIONS | INVESTIGATING WAR CRIMES IN GAZA

 

“The West cannot hide; they cannot claim ignorance. Nobody can say they didn’t know,” says Palestinian writer Susan Abulhawa. This is “the first livestream genocide in history … If people are ignorant, they are wilfully ignorant,” she says.

 

Watch the Video Here (1 hour, 20 minutes, 59 seconds)

Al Jazeera English Investigative Unit
9 October 2024

 

 

GAZA AFTER A YEAR OF WAR

 

A new Al Jazeera documentary chronicles the destruction and abuse.

 

A Palestinian child is seen following the Israeli airstrike on Ibn Rushd School in Al-Zawaida, sheltering displaced people, in Deir al-Balah, Gaza, on October 6. At least 24 Palestinians, including children, were killed and 93 others injured early Sunday morning in two separate Israeli airstrikes. / Photo by Ashraf Amra/Anadolu via Getty Images.

 

By Seymour Hersh
Substack.com
8 October 2024

 

Last week, Al Jazeera released Investigating War Crimes in Gaza. The 81-minute documentary is a searing indictment of the treatment of those who always suffer most in war—women and children—during Israel’s retaliation for the horrid murders Hamas inflicted inside Israel a year ago this week.

 

Israel’s initial ground attack failed to rescue all the Israeli hostages or to destroy the several hundred miles of the Hamas tunnel system. The ongoing air attacks have resulted in the indiscriminate killing of men, women, and children, day and night, in houses, apartments, and office buildings. Home to more than two million Palestinians, Gaza has been torn apart, with immense casualties from the bombings that have eventually left little sign of civilization: no hospitals, universities, markets, restaurants, or civic life.

 

The war in Gaza has extended into the West Bank and now to Lebanon. The Israeli leadership, headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with religious fanatics in charge of crucial ministries, has edged the nation into economic misery, and they continue a campaign of assassinations and bombings. Sirens sounded throughout Israel yesterday morning—a tragic anniversary—as a few easily intercepted missiles were fired from a still-operating tunnel by a remnant of Hamas.

 

Hezbollah’s much more formidable arsenal of missiles remains operational and capable of striking deep into Israel. The Israeli Air Force struck what were described as Hamas targets last weekend in Gaza, and the IDF continues the air and ground war against Hezbollah in Lebanon. There has been fear of an Israeli attack on Iran in retaliation for Iran’s missile attack on Israel following Israel’s assassinations of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah last month in Lebanon and a senior Hamas official last summer in Tehran. Murder is in the air in the Middle East, and there is no international leader—certainly no one in the Biden administration—with the standing and the will to keep it from happening.

 

In all of this, Netanyahu’s administration has been constantly supported by the Biden administration, which has reportedly provided Israel with $18 billion in military aid since October 7. As does Vice President Kamala Harris, Biden remains publicly resolute in his support of Israel. His foreign policy aides, headed by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, are now quiet. Blinken and his colleagues have spent the past several months telling Americans that a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas would happen, and some or all of the remaining hostages would be recovered. All along, Netanyahu had other plans.

 

The destruction of Gaza observed daily online and on television by the world, is the background for one of the major themes of the documentary: the callous indifference of Israeli soldiers operating amid the devastation. There is little contact throughout with Hamas, which has been battered by Israeli bombing and has not posed a significant above-ground threat. There also is no evidence today of a continuing intense Israeli hunt for the remainder of the more than 250 hostages initially seized by Hamas and others. The usual signs of fierce urban warfare in the Middle East—ambushes and door-to-door and house-to-house fighting—do not appear in the Al Jazeera documentary because the anticipated intense ground war with Hamas never came to be.

 

Instead, we have video after video, taken by Israeli soldiers and relayed to family and friends, of bored Israeli soldiers ransacking the apartments and homes of Gazan families who fled in panic, perhaps because of an Israeli warning that their neighborhood was to be targeted. Such warnings did take place but were not seen as a humanitarian gesture by Gazans who fled to the streets despite being terrified to venture outside.

 

The documentary showed that some apartments, once vacated, were ransacked by Israeli fighters with flak jackets off, weapons down, and their cellphones filming away. With their commanding officers watching and participating, the Israeli soldiers filmed themselves pawing through the apartments, destroying appliances, smashing furniture, and making fun of Arab food. There is a hunt for money, and, as young males in wartime will do, a ransacking of the clothing of women and the usual fascination for women’s underwear that often is worn by a prancing IDF soldier as his colleagues record away.

 

The videos, which were forwarded by social media to friends and families back home, reek of contempt for Palestinians, as if all the men in Gaza and their wives and children were hardcore members of Hamas. The documentary shows us that they turned out to be big hits at the many early pro-war dance parties back home. There is not much dancing today in financially stricken Israel. Other scenes in the video show clusters of Israeli soldiers, in uniform and on duty in Gaza, standing in close quarters on the top of emptied buildings—no bombs were coming their way—and cheering as a cluster of apartment buildings ten or so stories high a few hundred yards away began to tremble, obviously because of unseen bombs set off below ground, and then slowly fold away.

 

As the journalist who broke the stories of the My Lai massacre in South Vietnam and the photographs of sexual abuse of prisoners in Iraq’s infamous Abu Ghraib prison by untrained American Army Reserve prison guards, I understand that soldiers in combat do horrid things, including rape and murder, to noncombatants. However, the Abu Ghraib photos were circulated only among the unit's members on duty; they were not meant for outsiders, including the Army chain of command. It was understood that their actions would lead to prosecution if made known to higher-ups at headquarters.

 

That was not the case with the photos taken in Gaza and passed around widely, including among the soldiers’ commanding officers. Such evidence of enduring corruption among the officer class may be impossible to cure in the short term, given the degradation of Israel’s political and military leadership today.

 

There were other photos that I found far more troubling in the documentary, specifically the scenes of a forced march to the south, monitored by Israeli soldiers, by families who had found sanctuary in a hospital in Gaza City. The march was widely reported at the time, but the documentary added facts that were not known. The marchers—including young children and the elderly, some hobbling on crutches in the daytime heat—were ordered to wave a white flag in one hand and hold their IDs in another as they walked. Those who dropped either of these were not allowed to stop walking to retrieve the dropped goods. It was a form of gratuitous collective punishment seen rarely since World War II. It was shaming to watch.

 

Netanyahu and the religious zealots in control today in Israel have their eyes on Gaza and the West Bank as real estate that will soon be open to the possibility of future settler domination. Just who will rule the two million or so surviving residents of Gaza is not known, but Israel will approve any such leadership. Self-rule is not going to happen for the desperate surviving Palestinians—if they are allowed to stay in Gaza. A precise death toll in the last year of the war is not yet possible; estimates vary today from the official Gaza health ministry count of more than 41,000 to academic projections four times as high.

 

Netanyahu has been evident in his view of the Palestinians’ future. Last October 28, he told Israeli troops about to go into battle: “You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible.” It was a reference to a biblical command in which God permitted the Israelites to destroy an enemy known as the Amalekites entirely. “And we do remember,” Netanyahu said.

 

Chapter 15.3 of the first Book of Samuel has God commanding Samuel: “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”

 

Netanyahu is not alone in his modern-day fanaticism. Last April 30, Bezalel Smotrich, the extremist Israeli finance minister and member of the security cabinet, who is a close associate of Itamar Ben-Gvir, the equally fanatical minister of national security, returned to the Bible in publicly calling for the “total annihilation” of Israel’s enemies. He specifically cited three cities in Gaza that should be destroyed. “There are no half measures,” he said before quoting Deuteronomy: “‘You will blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. There is no place under heaven.’”

 

Smotrich ominously said that after Hamas is destroyed, Israel must “clear out, with God’s help, with one blow, wicked Hezbollah in the north, and send a message that what will happen to those who harm the Jewish people is the same as those who tried to harm us in the past—they will be destroyed, destroyed, destroyed. And it will echo for decades to come.”

 

Netanyahu has begun bombing “wicked” Hezbollah in Lebanon. Can anyone doubt the fate of Gaza and the West Bank? I cannot. This is no longer the civilized Israel I have visited and reported upon for many decades.

 

Is anyone in the Biden White House paying careful attention to the words of Netanyahu, Smotrich, and Ben-Gvir as America continues to ship more bombs and other arms to a deeply traumatized and terrorized Israel?

 

 

BUILDING THE BRIDGE! | A WAY TO GET TO KNOW THE OTHER AND ONE ANOTHER

 

Making a Difference – The Means, Methods, and Mechanism for Many to Move Mountains

 

Photo Credit: Abraham A. van Kempen, our home away from home on the Dead Sea

 

By Abraham A. van Kempen
Senior Editor
Updated 19 January 2024

Those who commit to 'healing our broken humanity' build intercultural bridges to learn to know and understand one another and others. Readers who thumb through the Building the Bridge (BTB) pages are not mindless sheep following other mindless sheep. They THINK. They want to be at the forefront of making a difference. They're in search of the bigger picture to expand their horizons. They don't need BTB or anyone else to confirm their biases.

Making a Difference – The Means, Methods, and Mechanism for Many to Move Mountains

Accurate knowledge promotes understanding, dispels prejudice, and awakens the desire to learn more. Words have an extraordinary power to bring people together, divide them, forge bonds of friendship, or provoke hostility. Modern technology offers unprecedented possibilities for good, fostering harmony and reconciliation. Yet its misuse can do untold harm, leading to misunderstanding, prejudice, and conflict.

 

Continue reading

 

A Free Trial for Life – SUBSCRIBE NOW!

• It's quick and straightforward.

• We won’t ask for your credit card number.

• Just enter your e-mail address to receive your complimentary free-for-life subscription to our newsletter.

• Please include your First and Last Name.

• We won’t share or sell your e-mail address.

 

_________________________

 

Related Articles Recently Posted on www.buildingthebridgefoundation.com:

 

OUR FRIDAY NEWS ANALYSIS

OUR WEDNESDAY NEWS ANALYSIS

OUR MONDAY EDITION

________________________

 

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not r