Fuck Robert Kagan And Would He Please Now Just Go Quietly Burn In Hell?

politico | The Washington Post on Friday announced it will no longer endorse presidential candidates, breaking decades of tradition in a move that immediately garnered fierce backlash from both employees and outside critics.

At least one editor has already resigned, and the paper’s legendary former top editor Marty Baron publicly rebuked the move as an act of “cowardice.”

The Post is the second major newspaper this week to punt on a presidential endorsement, following a similar decision by the Los Angeles Times on Wednesday at the instruction of its billionaire owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong, that led to the resignation of the editorials editor and multiple staffers.

In a note published to the paper’s website announcing the move, Washington Post publisher Will Lewis called it a “statement in support of our readers’ ability to make up their own minds,” writing that it would help the publication focus on “nonpartisan news for all Americans” from the newsroom and “thought-provoking, reported views from our opinion team to help our readers make up their own minds.”

“We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility,” Lewis added. “That is inevitable. We don’t see it that way.”

The Post’s newsroom and editorial team erupted in outrage. Robert Kagan, a neoconservative columnist and editor at large at the Post, resigned in response, he confirmed in a statement to POLITICO. A spokesperson for the Post declined to comment on Kagan’s resignation.

David Maraniss, a 46-year veteran reporter at the paper, publicly called the move “contemptible,” writing in a social media post: “Today is the bleakest day of my journalism career.”

And on Friday evening, nine of the paper’s opinion columnists published a scathing dissent of the decision, calling it “a terrible mistake” that “represents an abandonment of the fundamental editorial convictions of the newspaper that we love, and for which we have worked a combined 228 years.”

“There is no contradiction between The Post’s important role as an independent newspaper and its practice of making political endorsements, both as a matter of guidance to readers and as a statement of core beliefs,” the columnists wrote. “That has never been more true than in the current campaign.”

"Welp, that's certainly a new type of October Surprise,” Ashley Parker, a senior national political correspondent for the Post, wrote on X.

In a statement, the newspaper's union attributed the decision to billionaire owner Jeff Bezos and said the move "undercuts the work of our members at a time when we should be building our readers’ trust, not losing it."

"The message from our chief executive, Will Lewis — not from the Editorial Board itself — makes us concerned that management interfered with the work of our members in Editorial," the union wrote. "According to our own reporters and Guild members, an endorsement for Harris was already drafted, and the decision to not to publish was made by The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos."

A person close to the decision granted anonymity to discuss it told POLITICO that the decision was made within the Post and did not come from Bezos.

But others were quick to point the finger at Bezos.

Baron, who was executive editor from 2012 until his retirement in 2021, called the move “cowardice, with democracy as its casualty,” writing on X that Donald Trump “will see this as an invitation to further intimidate” Bezos and others.

“Disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage,” Baron wrote.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in an X post that the move “is what Oligarchy is about.”

“Jeff Bezos, the 2nd wealthiest person in the world and the owner of the Washington Post, overrides his editorial board and refuses to endorse Kamala,” Sanders wrote. “Clearly, he is afraid of antagonizing Trump and losing Amazon’s federal contracts. Pathetic.”

Lewis’ announcement comes months after the publisher made headlines over bombshell reports alleging that he played a role in a phone hacking scandal while he was an editor at the Sunday Times, an accusation he denies. Lewis had clashed over the scandal with the Post’s then-top editor, Sally Buzbee, who reportedly wanted to cover it.

Get Up In The Morning Slaving For Breakfast, Ohhh..., Ohhh...,

 

The Golden Age Of American Jews Is Ending

theatlantic | Americans maintain a favorable opinion of Jews. The community remains prosperous and politically powerful. But the memory of how quickly the best of times can turn dark has infused the Jewish reactions to events of the past decade. “When lights start flashing red, the Jewish impulse is to flee,” Jonathan Greenblatt, the head of the Anti-Defamation League, told me.

 Back in 2016, many liberals blustered about leaving the country if Donald Trump was elected president; after he won, many Jews actually hatched contingency plans. My mother tried, in vain, to get a passport from Poland, the country of her birth. An immigration lawyer I know in Cleveland told me that he had obtained a German passport, and suggested that I call the German embassy in Washington to learn how many other American Jews had done the same.

 The German government, for understandable reasons, doesn’t count Jews. But the embassy sent me a tally of passport applications submitted under laws that apply to victims of Nazi persecution and their descendants. In 2017, after Trump’s election, the number of applications nearly doubled from the year before, to 1,685, and then kept growing. In 2022, it was 2,500. These aren’t large numbers in absolute terms; still, it’s extraordinary that so many American Jews, whose applications required documenting that their families once fled Germany, now consider the country a safer haven than the United States.

 I also saw signs of flight in Oakland, where at least 30 Jewish families have been approved to transfer their children to neighboring school districts—and I heard similar stories in the surrounding area. Initial data collected by an organization representing Jewish day schools, which have long struggled for enrollment, show a spike in the number of admission inquiries from families contemplating pulling their kids from public school.

 After 1967, the previous moment of profound political abandonment, the American Jewish community began to entertain thoughts of its own radical reinvention. A coterie of disillusioned intellectuals, clustered around a handful of small-circulation journals and think tanks, turned sharply rightward, creating the neoconservative movement. Among activists, the energy that had once been directed toward Freedom Rides was plowed into the cause of Soviet Jewry, which became a defining political obsession of many synagogues in the 1970s and ’80s. Meanwhile, Jewish hippies turned inward, creating new spiritual movements centered on prayer and ritual.

 Although not all of these movements proved equally fruitful, this history, in a way, is cause for optimism, an example of how conflict might provide the path to religious renewal and a fresh sense of solidarity. It’s also a reminder that the Golden Age was not an uninterrupted rise.

The case for pessimism, however, is more convincing. The forces arrayed against Jews, on the right and the left, are far more powerful than they were 50 years ago. The surge of anti-Semitism is a symptom of the decay of democratic habits, a leading indicator of rising authoritarianism. When anti-Semitism takes hold, conspiracy theory hardens into conventional wisdom, embedding violence in thought and then in deadly action. A society that holds its Jews at arm’s length is likely to be more intent on hunting down scapegoats than addressing underlying defects. Although it is hardly an iron law of history, such societies are prone to decline. England entered a long dark age after expelling its Jews in 1290. Czarist Russia limped toward revolution after the pogroms of the 1880s. If America persists on its current course, it would be the end of the Golden Age not just for the Jews, but for the country that nurtured them.

Who Pays Tommy Robertson For The Racial And Ethnic Strife In The U.K.?

 

England Doesn't Have Free Speech And Never Has....,

Slate | Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro is reportedly under serious consideration to become vice president and presidential candidate Kamala Harris’ running mate. And, in a certain sense, there are good reasons for this: Democrats badly want (some would argue need) to win Pennsylvania. Shapiro is, by all accounts, quite popular in the state he runs. He won the governorship handily in 2022 against Pennsylvania state Sen. Doug Mastriano, proponent of Christian nationalist ideas—which Shapiro proved unafraid to tackle head-on. Shapiro is Jewish and has spoken strongly about and against antisemitism, which will surely be a theme in the 2024 presidential election. Republican candidate Donald Trump wonders aloud how any Jew could vote for a Democrat even as his son hosts a fundraiser with pundit Tucker Carlson, promoter of antisemitic conspiracy theories. Republicans reportedly see Shapiro as a threat, while progressive Pennsylvania state Sen. Nikil Saval touted his “strong willingness to build coalitions with people that he also disagrees with, and to change his views and policies through that act of coalition-building.”

And yet, for all of this, there are demerits to Shapiro, too. In the New Republic, the leftist Jewish writer David Klion made the case that Shapiro could threaten Democratic unity. Some of this is for domestic reasons. (More than two dozen public education advocacy groups wrote a letter asking Harris not to select Shapiro over his support for private school vouchers.) And some of this is because of Shapiro’s stance on Israel: As Klion notes, Shapiro, when attorney general, backed the state’s anti–boycott, divestment, and sanctions law, describing BDS as “rooted in antisemitism.” 

 

The Forward described Shapiro as having been “been a fixture at local rallies supporting Israel during its repeated wars in Gaza.” And his support has remained constant in this war, too: During a radio show on Oct. 11, Shapiro said, “We need to gird ourselves for what appears to be, you know, going to be a long war and we need to remain on the side of Israel.” Since then, as the Philadelphia Inquirer put it, he has “resisted” calls for a cease-fire. This past spring, as pro-Palestinian protests took place on campuses across the United States, the governor called on the University of Pennsylvania to “disband the encampment and to restore order and safety on campus” and implied a parallel between white supremacists and students protesting their university’s policies vis-à-vis Israel and the war in Gaza. 

 

All of this could very well hurt Democratic unity and suppress voter turnout on the political left. Nominating Shapiro would also signify an embrace of an understanding of antisemitism that some American Jews contest, issuing a ruling on American Jewish political identity that many would chafe against (though so too could the selection of another rumored veep contender, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, who signed into law a bill that includes in its definition of antisemitism “the denial of Jewish people’s right to self-determination and applying double standards to Israel’s actions”). But this policy or way of thinking, if embraced by the Harris campaign—regardless of who her running mate is—could do something else, too: It could undercut the core of Harris’ very compelling argument, which is that her campaign is standing up for American freedoms. 

 

Harris is using Beyoncé’s song “Freedom” as her campaign anthem. In her first campaign ad, one can hear the song in the background as Harris speaks about the various freedoms she’s aiming to protect and expand on: “The freedom not just to get by, but to get ahead. The freedom to be safe from gun violence. The freedom to make decisions about your own body.” Advertisement If this list of freedoms is to mean anything, it has to include the freedom to speak out and protest against the United States and its foreign policy, including with respect to Israel. It’s fundamental to the very concept of American liberty. I do not mean to pit Jewish candidates reportedly under consideration to be Harris’ running mate against each other, nor do I want to suggest that all Jews should take the same position. (As you may have heard, we’re not a monolith.) 

 

But this is a needle that Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker has managed to thread. Back in May, he said that he supported Jewish organizations, but he also said, with respect to calls to oust university administrators, “I’m not about calling for people to step down.” Some protesters were anti-war, he said, and some were anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian, and, yes, some were antisemitic. But, he stressed, “What I support is the fact that we need to protect not just Jewish students but all students on campuses where there are protests.” That’s how it should be in America: We all have a right to speak out, and we all have a right to be safe.

It's Always About The Staggering Overreach....,

jewishinsider  |  The decision by Vice President Kamala Harris to choose Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate is raising questions among some Jewish leaders about whether a pressure campaign led by anti-Israel activists to thwart Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s nomination ultimately played a part in influencing the selection process.

Harris formally announced her pick in a text message to supporters of her campaign on Tuesday morning. “Tim is a battle-tested leader who has an incredible track record of getting things done for Minnesota families,” she said. “I know that he will bring that same principled leadership to our campaign, and to the office of the vice president.” 

The selection comes amid Democratic concerns over anti-Israel protests at the party’s convention in Chicago this month. Harris will appear with Walz at a campaign rally in Philadelphia on Tuesday evening.

In recent weeks, Shapiro had faced mounting resistance from an outspoken coalition of far-left organizers who expressed vehement opposition to Shapiro over his staunch support for Israel and his criticism of extreme anti-Israel campus protesters, among other issues.

The campaign drew allegations of antisemitism for targeting Shapiro, an observant Jew whose positions on Israel were largely aligned with other contenders who emerged on the vice presidential short list, including Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Walz, the latter of whom had been favored by progressives. The rhetoric used by the left-wing campaign, including tagging Shapiro as “Genocide Josh,” also faced criticism for singling out the only Jewish candidate under serious consideration.

For some observers who had been cautiously excited by the possibility of a Jewish running mate — the first since 2000 — the organized campaign was a dismaying confirmation of concerns that Shapiro’s rise as a vice presidential prospect could be derailed amid a recent surge of antisemitism in the wake of Hamas Oct. 7 attack on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza.

“There are all kinds of legitimate factors that go into a vice-presidential pick, but there was an obvious and concerted anti-Shapiro effort that tapped into the antisemitic fervor coursing through our country,” said Nathan Diament, the executive director of public policy for the Orthodox Union. “Irrespective of the reasons Ms. Harris had,” he told Jewish Insider, Shapiro’s far-left opponents “will surely declare victory.”

With that in mind, Diament cautioned that Harris “will have to take other steps to undermine those extremists to show their claims are false.”

Brett Goldman, a founder of Democratic Jewish Outreach Pennsylvania and a political consultant in Philadelphia, said in an interview with JI that he viewed the Shapiro snub as a sign that Harris “is succumbing to pressure from the left” — whose relative electoral power, he suggested, has been overstated.

But despite his disappointment, Goldman clarified that his group would still back Harris’ campaign. “It’s unfortunate, and it sucks that it’s not Josh,” he said, describing the effort to block Shapiro as “based in” antisemitism and anti-Zionism. “But we still have an election to win.”

Jared Solomon, a Jewish state representative in Philadelphia now running for attorney general, a role previously held by Shapiro, said he regarded the popular Pennsylvania governor as “by far the best pick” for vice president, citing how he “brings faith into the conversation in an approachable, inclusive way.”

“I would say to the critics, specifically on his position regarding Israel, I would be hard-pressed to see much daylight between Josh and the other contenders,” he told JI. “I believe that he, like the others, thinks the United States is a friend of Israel” and “like the others, believes in a two-state solution.”

The anti-Shapiro campaign, Solomon added, “begs the question: Why is he, unlike the other candidates, facing so much pushback?”

To hear Eric Weinstein's entire "shut it down, the goyim know" drunken rant, - in which he repudiates everything he's professed about the DISC as well as placing himself squarely in the Epstein psy-op camp - go to the 3 hour 30 minute mark on the spotify podcast with Rogan.

I'd Vote Kamala If She Kept That Same Energy For AIPAC...,

Guardian  |  A prominent member of the progressive “Squad” in Congress, Cori Bush, has lost her Democratic primary in St Louis after pro-Israel pressure groups spent millions of dollars to unseat her over criticisms of Israel’s war in Gaza.

St Louis prosecutor Wesley Bell defeated Missouri’s first Black female member of Congress with about 51% of the vote. Bush took about 46%.

Bell’s win marks a second major victory for the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) after it played a leading role in unseating New York congressman Jamaal Bowman, another progressive Democrat who criticised the scale of Palestinian civilians deaths in Gaza, in a June primary.

Aipac pumped $8.5m into the race in Missouri’s first congressional district to support Bell through its campaign funding arm, the United Democracy Project (UDP), after Bush angered some pro-Israel groups as one of the first members of Congress to call for a ceasefire after the 7 October Hamas attack on Israel.

Much of the UDP’s money comes from billionaires who fund hardline pro-Israel causes and Republicans in other races, including some who have given to Donald Trump’s campaign.

Bush condemned Hamas for the killing of 1,139 people, mostly Israelis, and for abducting hundreds of others in October. But she also infuriated some Jewish and pro-Israel groups by describing Israel’s subsequent attack on Gaza and large scale killing of civilians as “collective punishment against Palestinians” and a war crime.

During the campaign, the UDP flooded St Louis with advertising hostile to Bush – although, as in other congressional races targeted by pro-Israel groups, it rarely mentioned the war in Gaza that has claimed nearly 40,000 Palestinian lives, mostly civilians, or her call for a ceasefire.

Instead, the campaign focused on Bush’s voting record in Congress, particularly her failure to support Joe Biden’s trillion-dollar infrastructure bill in 2021 and her support for the “defund the police” campaign. Bush struggled to get her message across that the UDP is misrepresenting both situations.

The UDP accounted for more than half of all the money spent on the race outside the campaigns themselves.

Bell has denied being recruited by pro-Israel groups to run against Bush, but suspicion lingered after he abandoned a challenge for the US Senate and entered the congressional race not long after Jewish organisations in St Louis began to seek a candidate to take on Bush after accusing her of “intentionally fuelling antisemitism”.

Bell is expected to win what is one of the safest Democratic congressional seats in November’s general election.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett Cosponsored Bill to Revoke Trump Secret Service Protection

TheTexan  | Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett (D-TX-30), a freshman from Dallas, signed onto a resolution back in April that would have stripped Secret Service protection from Donald Trump had he been sentenced to prison — a proposal now gaining attention following the July 13 assassination attempt against the former president.

House Resolution 8081 by Congressman Bennie Thompson (D-MS-02) would have changed the law centered on “Denying Certain Felons Secret Service Protection.”

“The protection authorized…shall terminate for any person upon sentencing following conviction for a Federal or State offense that is punishable for a term of imprisonment of at least one year,” the text reads.

Thompson and Crockett were joined by Reps. Troy Carter (D-LA-02), Barbara Lee (D-CA-12), Frederica Wilson (D-FL-24), Yvette Clarke (D-NY-09), Bonnie Coleman (D-NJ-12), Joyce Beatty (D-OH-03), and Steve Cohen (D-TN-09).

“Unfortunately, current law doesn’t anticipate how Secret Service protection would impact the felony prison sentence of a protectee — even a former President,” Thompson said when the resolution was filed.

“It is regrettable that it has come to this, but this previously unthought-of scenario could become our reality. Therefore, it is necessary for us to be prepared and update the law so the American people can be assured that protective status does not translate into special treatment — and that those who are sentenced to prison will indeed serve the time required of them.”

The bill’s fact sheet says specifically, “This measure would apply to former President Trump. It also would apply to all Secret Service protectees convicted and sentenced under felony charges.”

Trump was convicted in May on 34 felony counts in the New York “hush money” trial; he has not yet been sentenced to any prison time or any other punishment stemming from those convictions.

The resolution fell under the spotlight over the weekend when a gunman took multiple shots at Trump during a Pennsylvania campaign rally, one of which struck the former president in his ear and another which killed an attendee and injured two others. The assassination attempt failed in taking out Trump but could secure his election this November.

The betting odds of a Trump election jumped to 71 percent following the assassination attempt and his chances in swing states also jumped.

In its aftermath, Republicans in the Texas Legislature started circulating a joint letter calling for Crockett to resign from Congress.

Is The Chicago Democrat Machine (Pritzkers) The Shot Caller In Election 2024?

"No. This party should not, in any way, do anything to work around Ms. Harris. We should do everything we can to bolster her whether she's in second place or at the top of the ticket."

WATCH: Rep. Clyburn defends VP Harris role in the Democratic party. pic.twitter.com/IBjn9FJ9Jh

— MSNBC (@MSNBC) July 2, 2024

CTH  |  James Clyburn and Barack Obama are the two democrats who could unilaterally remove Joe Biden by withdrawing their support.  It must frustrate Jill Biden to know The Lightbringer and the Ballot Master have that kind of leverage over her appointments at Tiffanys.

As a result of this dynamic, we remind everyone to pay close attention to how Clyburn and Obama are indicating their position.

Additionally, it is worth remembering how Obama and Clyburn agreed on Kamala Harris as the VP selection in 2020, and informed Joe Biden who would be on his ticket.  The Jussie Smollet operation was still active when Kamala was installed with Biden.

During an MSNBC interview today, James Clyburn expressed support for Kamala Harris to ascend the top of the ticket if Biden makes the decision to remove himself.

Keep in mind, Biden will not quit. The decision to exit will be made for Biden, and within the departure process all deference will be given to the Biden group to shape their exit.

The Obama/Clyburn professionally Democratic power brokers within the DNC collective will make the decision; Biden will just be given the opportunity to make it look like it’s his choice.  That’s the way Democrats roll.

 

You Can't Make A Competent Silk Purse Out Of A Senile Sow's Ear

CTH  |  The wheels on the bus go thump, thump, thump…. just ask the three debate officials who are now being blamed for the disastrous performance by Joe Biden in Atlanta last week.

According to several sources who have talked to Politico, the Biden family are naming top Biden advisor Anita Dunn, her CIA husband Bob Bauer and top advisor Ron Klain for horrible debate preparation.  The three senior staff advisors have been a part of the Biden/Obama orbit for many years.  Jill Biden and the rest of the family are pointing the finger directly at them.

WASHINGTON DC – Members of Joe Biden’s family privately trashed his top campaign advisers at Camp David this weekend, blaming them for the president’s flop in Thursday’s debate and urging Biden to fire or demote people in his political high command.

There is no immediate expectation that Biden will follow through on that advice, according to three people briefed on the family conversations but not directly involved. The three people were granted anonymity to discuss the matter.

The blame was cast widely on staffers, including: Anita Dunn, the senior adviser who frequently has the president’s ear; her husband, Bob Bauer, the president’s attorney who played Trump in rehearsals at Camp David; and Ron Klain, the former chief of staff who ran point on the debate prep and previous cycles’ sessions.

“The aides who prepped the President have been with him for years, often decades, seeing him through victories and challenges. He maintains strong confidence in them,” Biden campaign spokesperson Kevin Munoz said in a statement.

 

Briahna Still Not Gone Get Her Job Back....,

threadreaderapp  |  BREAKING: New detailed report from the Times of London admits there is no evidence for the "mass rape" hoax fabricated and spread by the NYT, BBC, Guardian, AP and Reuters, and notes that Patten's own UN report confirms this and reiterates her call for an actual UN investigation 

some important facts to highlight from this new report. The main claim of rape on October 7 which the NYT heavily relied on is from a deranged fantasy "testimony" by "Sapir", including cut off breasts and severed heads. The Times now confirms from Israeli police that she lied:

this piece by The Times is the first one I have seen in prestige Western media that accurately states both the highly limited nature, scope and content of Pramila Patten's UN report, which every other outlet keeps lying about, falsely saying it "confirms Hamas mass rape", and "found evidence of sexual violence/rape" by the evidentiary standard of an actual full legal investigation, both of which Patten herself confirms again are lies and falsehoods but the NYT, BBC, Reuters and AP keep repeating to launder their own "mass rape" hoax (see and ).

The AP just did this again recently in its report exposing the two Zaka hoaxers by constantly, over and over again, repeating these blatant lies about Patten's UN report "confirming Hamas mass rape" and "sexual violence/rape on October 7."

But now the Times confirms that Patten's report was not full, legal or investigative in nature, that she explicitly does not attribute any sexual violence/rape to Hamas, and that any case of sexual violence she says might have happened on October 7 is based on a low evidentiary threshold that does not meet the standard of an actual full legal investigation, and relies entirely on Israeli information and "eyewitnesses" like the aforementioned Sapir.

That is why she keeps calling for an actual investigation, which as the Times notes the Israeli regime keeps blocking.

I have been saying all this for months now (see ), and finally it has penetrated a mainstream prestige Western media outlet, confirming that all the others in the Western media and political class including the NYT, BBC and Guardian are blatant propagandist liars.

They All Got The Same AIPAC Memo...,

https://x.com/LegalishCA/status/1793418038458687908

 

Briahna Joy Gray Fired From The Hill For Antisemitic Lack Of Sympathy

WashingtonTimes  |  Ms. Gray’s termination from The Hill’s YouTube program happened following a flood of online criticism she received over her treatment of Yarden Gonen, sister of Israeli hostage Romi Gonen, who was kidnapped by Hamas militants during the terrorist attack on southern Israel last Oct. 7.

Ms. Gray, who previously served as press secretary for Sen. Bernie Sanders, Vermont independent, apparently rolled her eyes and cut off Ms. Yarden when she told the host that she hoped Ms. Gray believed women who claim Hamas sexually assaulted them.

“I really hope that you, specifically, will believe women when they say that they got hurt,” she said.

Ms. Gray replied, “Alright, thanks for joining. Stick around.”

Although Ms. Gray attempted to steer the interview towards Israel’s response in Gaza, Ms. Yarden kept saying she did not want to discuss the politics in the region and preferred instead to highlight the hostage crisis and her sister’s plight.

“I am here to talk about my sister. Please help me spread her story. Help me make people understand what she is going through as a woman in 2024,” she said.

Ms. Gray said at one point during the interview, “I really do hope that Netanyahu agrees and Israel agrees to a cease-fire or deal that could bring all the hostages home, including your sister.” She added, “And I’m sure many people watching are praying for her safety.”

Ms. Gray received a wave of criticism from social media users online, who called her antisemitic for her behavior towards Ms. Yarden.

“The way Brianna Joy Gray sneers and rolls her eyes at Israeli pain paints a picture of dehumanization,” said the Anti-Defamation League’s Carly Pildis.

Rep. Ritchie Torres, New York Democrat said, “The family member of an Israeli hostage pleads with Briahna Joy Gray to believe Jewish women who have been abducted, tortured, and raped by Hamas.”

He said, “I have as much sympathy for Briahna Joy Gray as she has for the hostages. None.”

How Bad Must The Shit Be For Her To Give Up Her Federal Pension?

reuters  |  The State Department submitted the 46-page unclassified report earlier this month to Congress as required under a new National Security Memorandum that Biden issued in early February.
Among other conclusions, the report said that in the period after Oct. 7 Israel “did not fully cooperate” with U.S. and other efforts to get humanitarian aid into Gaza.

But it said this did not amount to a breach of a U.S law that blocks the provision of arms to countries that restrict U.S. humanitarian aid.

Gilbert, who worked for the State Department for over 20 years, said she notified her office the day the State Department report was released that she would resign. Her last day was Tuesday.

U.S. State Department deputy spokesperson Vedant Patel told reporters on Thursday that he would not comment on personnel issues but that the department welcomes diverse points of view.

He said the administration stood by the report and continued to press the government of Israel to avoid harming civilians and urgently expand humanitarian access to Gaza.

"We are not an administration that twists the facts, and allegations that we have are unfounded," Patel said.

 

The Israeli embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Gilbert's accusations.

 

Gilbert’s bureau was one of the four that contributed to a classified initial options memo, reported exclusively by Reuters in late April, that informed U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken Israel might be violating international humanitarian law.

 

Gilbert said the State Department removed subject matter experts from working on the report to Congress when the document was a rough draft about 10 days before it was due. She said the report was then edited by more senior officials.

 

In contrast to the published version, the last draft she saw stated that Israel was blocking humanitarian assistance, Gilbert said.

 

Officials who resigned prior to Gilbert include Arabic language spokesperson Hala Rharrit and Annelle Sheline of the human rights bureau.

 

More than 36,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israel's air and land war in Gaza. Israel launched its offensive after Hamas fighters crossed from Gaza into southern Israel on Oct. 7 last year, killed 1,200 people and abducted more than 250, according to Israeli tallies.

35,000 Dead Palestinians Is A Preposterous Undercount Of The Dead

counterpunch  |  The specter of death in Gaza is difficult, if not impossible, to grasp. At a distance, our understanding of the situation often relies on somber statistics, especially in the establishment media. The official count, consistently cited by mainstream outlets, comes in at around 35,000 deaths.

In May, the New York Times and other outlets jumped on a report from the United Nations, which had apparently revised Gaza’s death count. But the U.N. did not, in fact, halve its total of women and children who had died, as the Jerusalem Post claimed. It simply altered its classification system in terms of those estimated to have died and those it could definitively confirm to be deceased. The totals, however, remained the same. Nonetheless, even those numbers, based on information provided by Gaza’s Ministry of Health, end up blurring the cruel reality on the ground. U.N. officials also fear that at least 10,000 more Gazans lie buried under the rubble in that 25-mile strip of land.

But death figures can also impart meaning, as the long-time consumer-rights activist Ralph Nader recently pointed out. He happens to believe that Israel could have killed at least 200,000 Palestinians in Gaza, a mind-boggling figure, but worth examining. So, I called on him to elaborate.

“The undercount is staggering,” said Nader, whose Lebanese parents emigrated to the United States before he was born. “The U.S. and Israel want a low number, so they look around. Instead of themselves estimating — which they don’t want to do — they cling to Hamas’s [figures], and Hamas doesn’t want a realistic number because they don’t want to be seen as unable to protect their own people. So, they developed these criteria: to be counted, the dead must first be certified by hospitals and morgues [which barely exist].”

He has made it a habit to reach out to writers and editors. Like so many others, I have a bit of a phone affair with that 90-year-old thinker and activist. We discuss politics, baseball, and journalism’s rapid, insidious decline. I’ve certainly heard him animated in the past, but never more indignant than when he addresses the situation in Gaza. “The whole thing is one death camp now. It’s easily 200,000 deaths in Gaza,” he insisted, citing the number of bombs dropped, which have, by some estimates, exceeded 100,000. We know that at least 45,000 missiles and bombs had been used in Gaza within three months of the beginning of Israel’s military campaign. As a result, as many as 175,000 buildings have been damaged or destroyed by Israel. So, he seems to be on to something.

“Eventually [the real number of the dead] will come out,” he adds. “They’ll do a census, whoever takes over. The one thing the extended families in Gaza know is who’s been killed in their families.”

Of course, his assertion is circumstantial and he knows it, but he’s making a point. With so much of the Gaza Strip facing imminent starvation, nearly all hospitals out of commission, just about no medicine left, and very little clean water or food, 35,000 deaths are likely, in the end, to prove a drastic undercount.

Why They Call These Pirates Name Stealers....,

 

Do you know that Netanyahu's real name is Mileikowsky?

Every israeli prime minister changed their name to sound more Jewish or middle eastern.

Here’s a list of all their real names. Share or you’re antisemitic. pic.twitter.com/RfbH8PIl6K

— Richard Medhurst (@richimedhurst) May 27, 2024

Israel Became A Gangster State When Its Lawbreakers Became Its Lawmakers

NYTimes  |  For decades, most Israelis have considered Palestinian terrorism the country’s biggest security concern. But there is another threat that may be even more destabilizing for Israel’s future as a democracy: Jewish terrorism and violence, and the failure to enforce the law against it.

Our yearslong investigation reveals how violent factions within the Israeli settler movement, protected and sometimes abetted by the government, have come to pose a grave threat to Palestinians in the occupied territories and to the State of Israel itself. Piecing together new documents, videos and over 100 interviews, we found a government shaken by an internal war — burying reports it commissioned, neutering investigations it assigned and silencing whistle-blowers, some of them senior officials.
It is a blunt account, told in some cases for the first time by Israeli officials, of how the occupation came to threaten the integrity of the country’s democracy.

Lawbreakers Become Lawmakers
Officials told us that once fringe, sometimes criminal groups of settlers bent on pursuing a theocratic state have been allowed for decades to operate with few restraints. Since Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition government came to power in 2022, elements of that faction have taken power — driving the country’s policies, including in the war in Gaza.

The lawbreakers have become the law.
Bezalel Smotrich, the finance minister and the official in Netanyahu’s government with oversight over the West Bank, was arrested in 2005 by the Shin Bet domestic security service for plotting road blockages to halt the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. He was released with no charges. Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s national security minister, had been convicted multiple times for supporting terrorist organizations and, in front of television cameras in 1995, vaguely threatened the life of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was murdered weeks later by an Israeli student.

Settler Violence Protected, and Abetted
All West Bank settlers are in theory subject to the same military law that applies to Palestinian residents. But in practice, they are treated according to the civil law of the State of Israel, which formally applies only to territory within the state’s borders. This means that Shin Bet might probe two similar acts of terrorism in the West Bank — one committed by Jewish settlers and one committed by Palestinians — and use wholly different investigative tools.

After the Arab-​Israeli War of 1967, Israel controlled new territory in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. In 1979, it agreed to return the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt.

The job of investigating Jewish terrorism falls to a division of Shin Bet known commonly as the Jewish Department. But it is dwarfed both in size and prestige by the Arab Department, the division charged mostly with combating Palestinian terrorism.

Jews involved in terror attacks against Arabs over the past decades have received substantial leniency, which has included reductions in prison time, anemic investigations and pardons. Most incidents of settler violence — torching vehicles, cutting down olive groves — fall under the jurisdiction of the police, who tend to ignore them. When the Jewish Department investigates more serious terrorist threats, it is often stymied from the outset, and even its successes have sometimes been undermined by judges and politicians sympathetic to the settler cause.

There's Still A Civil War Bubbling For Control Of The Israeli Government

mondoweiss |   Any Palestinian following the developments in the Israeli protest movement against “the judicial coup” will require nerves of steel to withstand the hypocrisy on display. The protests are estimated to be 100,000 people strong, politicians are jumping over tables in the Knesset, and former army Chief of Staff Yair Golan is calling for a state of “civil disobedience.” Only yesterday, Netanyahu dismissed Defense Minister Yoav Gallant after he voiced opposition to the judicial reforms, and angry protestors took to the streets in Tel Aviv and other cities and shut down highways. The army has been going through its own crisis ever since military reservists, especially those in the Air Force, joined the protests. If that wasn’t enough, large sums of money are being transferred out of Israeli banks for fear of the effects that the judicial reforms might have on the Israeli economy and on the value of the Israeli Shekel. As for gall, that was hardly in short supply in Yuval Noah Harari’s op-ed telling Netanyahu to “stop your coup or we’ll stop the country.” It’s as if Harari has never heard of al-Issawiyya, which continues to be strangled by the Hebrew University where he teaches, or of oppression and occupation, which wasn’t reason enough to warrant speaking of halting the state.

The Israeli government is trying to use these judicial reforms to grant itself absolute power through the passing of two central laws. The first law aims to establish control over the Israeli Judicial Selection Committee, hence appointing judges whose loyalties would lie with specific politicians rather than with the law; and the second law is the “Override Clause,” which would allow the Knesset to override any decision of the Israeli High Court of Justice that passes by a majority of 61 Knesset members. In other words, the government would seize complete control over the state without checks and balances, effectively becoming the sole governing authority in the country given that it also controls the Knesset by virtue of its majority within the parliamentary body. 

All of this is taking place without a constitution. This means, for instance, that the government can decide to hold elections once every ten years instead of the standard four-year limit still in effect, and no one can override it; or it could pass laws granting the government total control over the media, or it could put LGBTQ people in jail. But the true crisis will emerge when the Israeli High Court of Justice repeals the judicial reforms and regards them as illegal — that is when the state will enter a constitutional crisis without a solution. 

Who will the Israeli security apparatus obey: the government or the judiciary? This isn’t merely a crisis of the state; it is far more profound, posing the question of what the state is in the first place. Former commander of the Israeli Air Force Eliezer Shkedi said as much in an interview with Channel 12: “I have never come across a situation where the commander of the Air Force, the chief of staff, the head of the Mossad, or the police commissioner has to decide whether he listens to an executive authority or to a court decision,” going on to say that if he were the head of the Air Force he would never disobey a court decision.

The fact that Israeli society has always echoed this hypocrisy is nothing new, and neither is it a novel discovery that “democracy” was never an honest description of a state that defines itself as a “state of the Jews.” But the protests this time are greater than at any previous point, and 35% of Israelis express fears of a “civil war,” a phrase that has made its way into daily use.

It’s precisely this level of hysteria, however, that makes it especially infuriating — because of the power and influence of the participants in the protests, because it’s the first time that the struggle is over the identity of the state, and because the roots of the crisis relate to profound political questions concerning the Zionist project, which are normally considered off-limits.

The DEI vs. Zionist Intranecine Conflict Continues More Publicly...,

NYTimes  |  The New York Times is astonishing its readers, especially those of us who monitor its tradition of biased and dishonest reporting about Israel/Palestine. The paper just published a long indictment of what it actually called “Jewish terrorism” against Palestinians. The report, which is the cover story of the widely-circulated Sunday magazine, is titled: “The Unpunished: How Extremists Took Over Israel.” Here is the opening paragraph of the “takeaway” synopsis that ran along with the actual article:

“For decades, most Israelis have considered Palestinian terrorism the country’s biggest security concern. But there is another threat that may be even more destabilizing for Israel’s future as a democracy: Jewish terrorism and violence, and the failure to enforce the law against it.” 

The massive article, by Ronen Bergman and Mark Mazzetti, prints out to 52 pages. It covers decades of history, and includes more than 100 interviews. Bergman has long had ties to Israel’s intelligence services, and he includes inside sources. “This story is told in three parts. . .,” the reporters say. “Taken together they tell the story of how a radical ideology moved from the fringes to the heart of Israeli political power.” 

Howard French, the distinguished former New York Times reporter turned author, asked the obvious question on Twitter: 

“Where was the daily coverage of the Times throughout all of this?”

French’s view was echoed in the paper’s comment section. “Jack” was one of the 2500 Times readers who have already overwhelmingly endorsed the article. He wrote: “. . . I am struck by this piece being the only one I can recall to make consistent use of the term ‘terrorism’ to describe the actions of Jewish Israelis. It is far more common to hear settlers who commit violence against unarmed civilians referred to as ‘extremists’ rather than ‘terrorists.’” 

So why did the Times print this long report, which does actually start to correct decades of its biased coverage? In time, leaks from people on the paper’s staff may provide part of the answer. But surely the pro-Palestine solidarity movement, along with alternative media, can claim some of the credit. In the Internet age, it is much harder to cover up the truth. First hand accounts from Gaza, the occupied Palestinian West Bank, and from Israel itself, are now widely available, and the student protesters and others have spread the word. Add to that internal dissension at the Times itself, and so top management there may have decided the paper had to act if its reputation wasn’t going to be completely tarnished.

A related question: Ronen Bergman has long had well-placed sources inside Israel’s intelligence elite. Very little of what is in this long Times article is new; much of the reporting is about events that happened decades ago. So why did Bergman decide — now — to report on what is basically old news? And why did his sources, who include former Israeli prime ministers, decide — now — to talk to the New York Times?

A valuable post on this site in March 2023 by the eloquent Razi Nabulse offers a clue. Nabulse probed behind the headlines to explain why Israeli Jews last year joined the massive uprising against the effort by Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right wing allies to stage a “coup” against the country’s legal system. The protesters represented the old Israeli elite, who are losing political power to the religious far right and the increasingly powerful settler/colonists. It is this old elite that Bergman quoted at length in this long report. The Times may be trying to protect this older “good” Israel from Netanyahu and his “bad” allies, who are the greatest threat to the country’s international standing in many decades.

It is too early to celebrate the Times‘s possible change in direction. First we will have to see if the paper, or other mainstream U.S. media, do any follow up. The adage used to be that “yesterday’s newspaper wraps today’s fish,” and the online attention span can also be short. It is possible that this story will die down in a few days, and the Times will go back to its old distortion methods. We shall see.

In Netanyahu's America, IDF Veterans Get American Veterans' Preferences...,

responsiblestatecraft  |  In what might sound like something out of Louis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland, or for the more modern twist, Seinfeld's Bizarro World, two Republican congressmen have introduced legislation that would extend the same employment protections to Americans serving in the Israeli army as Americans who leave work and home to serve the U.S. military.

In other words, no different than U.S. National Guardsman or Reservists, they are just fighting for another country.

“Over 20,000 American citizens are currently defending Israel from Hamas terrorists, risking their lives for the betterment of our ally,” said Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA), in a recent statement.“This legislation will ensure we do everything possible to support these heroes who are standing with Israel, fighting for freedom, and combating terrorism in the Middle East.”

“As our closest ally in the Middle East continues to defend itself against terror, many brave Americans have decided to lend a hand,” added Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio). “I’m proud that this legislation extends important protections to those Americans who chose to risk their lives in the fight against terror.”

Their legislation would, according to the lawmakers, amend title 38 of United States Code, and the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) to include American citizens, including Israeli dual citizens, who serve in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). The SCRA allows protections against foreclosure, default judgements in legal cases, repossession of rental property or leases and hiked interest rates while a individual is serving. This amendment would also extend to these IDF soldiers protections under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), which extends "civilian job rights and benefits for veterans, members of reserve components, and even individuals activated by the President of the United States to provide Federal Response for National Emergencies."

According to the Washington Post, as of February, some 23,380 American citizens are currently serving in the Israeli Army, many of them emigres to Israel, though reservists living in the U.S. have been called back to Israel to fight. Some 21 Americans in IDF units have been killed inside Gaza, another one died along Israel’s northern border with Lebanon, and another was killed in Jerusalem while serving in Israel’s border police.

Military service is compulsory for all Israeli Jews after high school; many stay on to serve in the reserves. According to reports, Israel called up 350,000 reservists after the Hamas attacks.

Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., caused a stir in October, shortly after the Hamas attacks on Oct. 7, when he showed up for work on the floor of the House wearing his IDF uniform. "As the only member to serve with both the United States Army and the Israel Defense Forces, I will always stand with Israel,” Mast wrote in a post on X, alongside several photos of him wearing the uniform.