There are several reasons prominent Democrats could have cited in endorsing their nominee, Abdul el-Sayed, in his bid to defeat Mike Rogers in the U.S. Senate race in Michigan. This is one of the best:
Democrats are united by a common purpose: putting a check
on Donald Trump by defeating his Republican enablers and taking back the
Senate. We look forward to working with Abdul and Democrats across Michigan to
win this seat in November,” the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, and
Kirsten Gillibrand, who chairs the Democratic Senate campaign arm, said in a
joint statement.
They could have sat this one out, as thus far has Michigan senator Elissa Slotkin, whose courage rivals that of Louisiana senator Bill Cassidy, who voted for the nomination of Todd Blanche as Attorney General because, it appears, Donald Trump otherwise would be even meaner to him. Slotkin also did not endorse in the primary race between el-Sayed and Haley Stevens, preferring the Sgt. Schultz approach.
In promoting the nominee, Schumer and Gillibrand might have stated "hurt people hurt people" while explaining the bruising primary battle between el-Sayed and Stevens. Theoretically, they could have endorsed el-Sayed's vigorous campaigning featuring his friendship with Hasan Piker. Piker, who has himself enthusiastically endorsed Hamas over Israel and blamed the USA for 9/11, has added to his greatest hits collection:
More realistically, such Democrats could defend the nominee's scapegoating of AIPAC and defend his constant refrain about Israel committing genocide in Gaza. A few lies from a Senate candidate cannot compare to the never-ending lies from the President. Instead, they gave about the best possible argument for supporting Abdul el-Sayed, that the highest priority is "taking back the Senate".
Certainly, they could have done even better, such as by lauding the party's nominee for supporting "universal health care". El-Sayed goes further by advocating Medicare for All, which is the means to the end of assuring universal health care. Most of the more centrist Democrats, such as Haley Stevens, either oppose Medicare for All of have remained noncomittal.
The sweet spot for centrist or moderates endorsing progressives such as el-Sayed would be to applaud the candidate's support for universal health care while they ignore the issue of the more ambitious Medicare for All. Whatever Americans think of the latter approach, most clearly approve of the goal of health care for all. Done smoothly, Democratic politicians can assert support for universal health care and, if they wish, avoid offering specifics.
For some bizarre reason, prominent centrists and moderates (unfortunately) skeptical of MFA avoid coming out even for universal health care. Nonetheless, Chuck Schumer and the others did their best to rally support for the party's candidate, even though they- wisely- wanted him to lose to Haley Stevens.
They didn't lavish praise on their candidate; they attacked the very unpopular Donald Trump. And they took a dig at his "Republican enablers," subtly ridiculing the opposition, including their own Senate colleagues. Democrats act as if they're allergic to criticizing Republicans lacking the initials "DJT," but here they did.. If other Democrats follow suit, they even have a chance of wresting the Senate from Republicans, even with candidates such as Abdul el-Sayed.
Well, on a positive note, we finally have our answer- or at least are closer to one.
On July 2, CNN's Kasie Hunt asked Abdul el-Sayed, then a candidate for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate from Michigan, "Do you believe Israel has a right to exist?"
El-Sayed was not asked about American presidents, yet replied in part "every single president who's served has said they believe in a two-state solution. Israel exists." Two weeks ago in The Washington Monthly, Bill Scher noted
El-Sayed glibly saying “Israel exists” just as “Egypt
exists” is no different an evasion than when Republican Supreme Court nominees
would assure Democratic senators that they acknowledge Roe v. Wade was a
settled case. That left open the possibility that they wanted to unsettle Roe
and would, if given the power to do so, which they did.
Similarly, the last few years, many Republicans have been asked whether Joe Biden won the 2020 election, replied "he is President" (or "Joe Biden is president"). The evasion is not reassuring.
Hunt responded "you say it exists, but does it have a right to"? El-Sayed then stated in part "I didn't say that- I just said the question of Israel's existence is not a question," a repetition of "Israel exists"
Hunt asked a third time about Israel's right to exist, and the candidate argued that domestic needs would be addressed were Israel not funded. He concluded "AIPAC and Israel have become questions that too many people have to answer because our tax dollars keep getting spent over there rather than being spent here." However, as Scher explained
This is a false choice used as misdirection. For the last 15
years, the U.S. has spent about $4 to 5 billion a year on military aid to
Israel, except for a one-year spike to $12.5 billion in Fiscal Year 2024
following the October 7 attacks. Annual federal spending on education between
2021 and 2024 roughly ranged from $170 to $180 billion. For health care, the
range is $1.8 to $2.1 trillion. Aid to Israel is minuscule in comparison. One
can argue we should spend more on health care and education and less on Israel,
but our ability to spend on health care and education—especially since the
federal budget is not subject to any balanced budget rules—is not constrained
by what we give to Israel.
Not for lack of trying, Hunt never got the answer which voters in Michigan had a right to. however, the morning after his victory over Haley Stevens in the primary, el-Sayed declared
We've been talking about an illegal apartheid regime for a very, very long time and that supersedes Netanyahu itself. So I just think we need to treat Israel the way we should treat any othre country that behaved the way Israel is behaving.
El-Sayed: "We've been talking about an illegal apartheid regime for a very very long time, and that supersedes Netanyahu itself. So I just think we need to treat Israel the way we would treat any other country that behaved the way Israel is behaving." pic.twitter.com/tS3KS01LcX
Although Israel often is shamelessly accused of practicing apartheid, the social and political system of Muslim nations of the Middle East more closely resemble apartheid than anything in Israel. (Muslims in the West Bank- under Israeli occupation and not a part of Israel- have fewer rights than those in Israel itself.)
But the new and especially significant portion of the nominee's statement is the allegation that "an illegal apartheid regime... supersedes Netanyahu itself." This goes right to the heart of el-Sayed's belief that Israel has no right to exist.
A new, coalition government took office in Israel ten months before the deadly Hamas terrorist attack of October 7, 2023. Prior to the new Adminstration, headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, settlement activity in the West Bank was limited. However
In February 2023 the cabinet created a new Settlements
Administration with the authority to expropriate land in the West Bank and
regulate its use, approve the expansion of existing Israeli settlements, and
determine whether buildings constructed by Palestinians have been built legally
according to the Israeli government. A document obtained by The New York Times
in 2024 revealed that enforcement of regulations restraining Israeli settlement
activity became virtually nonexistent when the Settlements Administration was
created.
This is an action of the current government, the quickening pace of Jewish settlement in the West Bank and steadfast resistance to consideration of a Palestinian state. Yet, although singling out Netanyahu for special opporbrium, el-Sayed alleges that the "illegal apartheid regime" is a product quite apart from the current Prime Minister. (He does not explain why it is illegal or constitutes apartheid, but never mind.)
Michigan's newest Senate candidate does not condemn the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. He never mentions Israeli use of 2,000 pound bombs on Gaza, which explode in a wide radius, killing Hamas fighers and civilians alike. Unsurprisingly, he does not refer to Israeli refusal to coordinate with the government of Lebanon so that the eradication of Hezbollah might become a reality.
He does none of that because to him, it is unnecessary and mere detail. Plain and simple, Michigan's newest Senate candidate is opposed to the existence of the state of Israel. Democrats understandably are not condemning their newly-minted nominee. But that need not, and shouldn not, prevent them from denouncing his extreme views on Israel and linkage to the brazenly anti-Israel, anti-American streamer Hasan Piker. Their refusal to do do so is a stain which won't go away on its own.
Abe Greenwald is not your classic Christian name, but one cannot assume based on a name. However, Wikipedia describes Commentary (magazine) as "a monthly American magazine on religion, Judaism, Israel, politics, and social and cultural issues." So one can assume.
Finally, Michiganders will break free of the Jewish money that’s been destroying their lives all these years.
"Jewish money" is not standard anti-Semitism. It is flashing red light anti-Semitism. This is significant, though not as significant when the anti-Semitism is obscured by a patina of sincerity. This person leaves a former Barack Obama advisor battered and bloodied:
So @davidaxelrod pulled the "as a Jew" move on CNN tonight — right on cue. He opens by invoking that he "speaks as the son of a Jewish refugee," then uses that cover to call it "a legitimate question" whether AIPAC should be treated as "an agent of any foreign government, whether… pic.twitter.com/9YIYh3STlO
18 U.S. Code, Section 951 establishes the punishment for being an "agent of a foreign government," which it defines as "an individual who agrees to operate within the United States subject to the direction or control of a foreign government official." There is no evidence that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee operates within the USA subject to the direction or control of anyone, excepting perhaps the American citizens who contribute to it.
As this twitterer notes, David Axelrod is giving a green light to anti-semitism. No matter how often he or anyone else follows "as a Jew" with a lie, being Jewish is no excuse for falsehood and bias. David Axelrod should put up or shut up.
For those who understand what "genocide" truly is, Israel is not committing genocide. However,Israel hater Mehdi Hasan at least does seem to ask a good question:
Glad to hear Buttigieg describe what happened in Gaza as war crimes, but if that’s what he believes, then why didn’t he resign from the Biden administration in protest? Why would he want to be part of a government that was arming and funding what he believed to be war crimes? https://t.co/fBP3Vs9tCM
Buttigieg didn't resign in part because he is a careerist, which characterizes most prominent politicians. However, there may be at least a couple of other reasons.
According to an analysis by U.S. War Explained, the law governing war crimes "is a complex tapestry woven from international treaties and domestic statutes". The latter include the Geneva Conventions; the Rome Statute (the founding charter of the International Criminal Court); and U.N. Security Council Resolutions. Therefore, to determine whether something is a "war crime," then, we should consider the source and intent (where the allegation is coming from); the principle of distinction (whether the target is civilian or military); the principle of proportionality (a question of balance); evidence of intent (e.g., purpose of the attack); and command responsibility (which individuals along the chain should be held accountable).
Whew! That's a lot for one paragraph. And that's the point. Accurately distinguishing a war crime from bad act by someone we don't like is not a simple matter, despite the wish of activists. Laws and regulations typically are written by lawyers and often are very hard to interpret. That's not a coincidence
In such cases, there is, somewhere, an objective truth. However, in the absence of a declaration from God, what one views as the truth is in the eyes of the beholder. Most likely, Israel has committed war crimes, though the vast majority of its actions probably don't qualify.
One of the factors cited by US War Explained, the matter of proportionality, illustrates another reason Buttigieg didn't find the Biden Administration's policy toward Gaza horrendous. The Biden Administration had been supplying Israel with the relatively precise 500-pound bombs, as well as with 2,000-pound bombs, with a significantly greater blas radius and collateral killing of unintended bystanders. However, in May of 2024
the White House announced a decision to withhold a
shipment of 1,800 2,000-lb bombs and 1,700 500-lb bombs, with then-US president
Joe Biden threatening to freeze additional offensive weaponry if Israel
launched a major military offensive in Gaza’s southernmost city of Rafah, where
over one million Palestinians were sheltering at the time.
In July, the 500-lb bombs were eventually released by the
Biden administration after the IDF entered Rafah. The Palestinian civilian
population in the Strip’s southernmost city had largely evacuated by then.
The Biden administration had asserted that only the
2,000-pound bombs were withheld, over concerns that Israel would use them in
densely populated parts of Gaza, and that all other shipments had been
processed.
That was a politically tricky decision to make, for soon after the Trump Administration returned, Donald & Co. hastily shipped 1800 of these heavy bombs to Israel. Suspending shipment in 2024 upehld both the principle of distinction and the principle of proportionality. Pete Buttigieg was part of an Administration which understood that our ally must defend itself, including killing Hamas fighters, while avoiding extraneous deaths.
That's never addressed by critics of Israel, those who blithely accuse the nation of "genocide," a policy they don't understand; of the apartheid they don't understand; and of war crimes, which are extraordinarily difficult to figure out. (August is semi-colon month.) Hatred of the only democracy in the Middle East blinds them to complexities and to truth, neither of which captures their interest.
In his question- rhetorical, I think- this guy makes a great point:
Detroit News: "A companion objective of AIPAC is to ensure antisemitism doesn't gain a significant foothold in this country. Helping deny a national platform to a man who stands on the stage with confirmed antisemites is essential to that work.
On March 12, 2026 an Arab-Muslim and naturalized citizen responded to an Israeli airstrike which had killed his two brothers and two children in Lebanon. He drove his vehicle into a hallway of Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, Michigan. No one was killed and no child was inured, though the driver shot himself dead after a gunfight with security officials, one of whom was injured.
In a brilliantly worded statement, deceptive statement, Abdul el-Sayed- now positioned to win the Democratic primate for Senate in Michigan- stated at 1:41 of this video:
Temple Israel is not the State of Israel. Jewish people are not hte State of Israel, Jewish people are not the political actors who make direct choices for the State of Israel.
We cannot, and must not, conflate these, an act rooted in antisemitism. One can have righteous anger at the actors of the State of Israel while expressing solidarity with the Jewish people, including Jewish people in Israel. The conflation of these, whether in the dastardly way Ayman Ghazali did or in an effort to use the specter of anisemitism to defend the indefensible, it sits at the root of our failure to stop this violence.
Ayman Ghazali, el-Sayed acknowledged, committed a violent, unjustified attack which, as the candidate noted, was not directed toward the real villians. Those are Israel- not the government of Israel, but the country itself- and its supporters, who "use the specter of anisemitism to defend the indefensible."
El-Sayed used the occasion to condemn Mr. Ghazali, probably because he is an easy target now that he is dead. He also himself conflated the perpetrator's act of terrorism- an effort to murder innocent children- with not only Israel, but its supporters.
The money quote, stated at 1:21 is "hurt people, hurt people," which seems to normal people to be an apologia for the attack on the synagogue. This was not an idle, toss away statement. Following his criticism of people sensitive to anti-Semitism as part of "the root of our failure to stop this violence," el-Sayed added the same phrase- "hut people, hurt people":- at 2:21, precisely a minute later.
Twice in 61 seconds in a sophisticated, highly artful statement is no coincidence. The "hurt people, hurt people" is not the best evidence that Michigan Democrats apparently are poised to nominate an anti-Semite for the United States Senate.
That would be the candidate's campaign appearances with Hasan Piker, a successful podcaster who appears to like Jews as much as he likes the USA. The latter blames Israel and the USA for the 10/7/23 attack, which included sexual violence he said "doesn't matter" to him. He celebrates the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks, which he maintains "America deserved".
Suchis the company Abdul el-Sayed keeps. Were I a Republican running for political office, I would denounce, not campaign alonside of, David Duke or any ex-Klansman offering his support. That would not be particularly admirable on my part; most people would do the same.
Consequently, it shouldn't be objectionable that AIPAC is going all out to block from the Democrtic nomination a candidate whose views are an abomination to Jews. In this case, too, it's a candidate whose views are an abomination to all who find hatred of Jews unacceptable. Michigan Democrats can choose to reject hatred. Or not.
If, God willing, Abdul el-Sayed loses his bid to become the Democratic nominee to replace retiring Democratic senator Gary Peters of Michigan, he can always take up a career in storytelling.
Here, Haley Steven's opponent states "I don't hate anybody but I love everybody." Presumably, that would include Benjamin Netanyahu, whom el-Sayed has reason to dislike. Yet we do not know becuase el-Sayed speaks a few lines which bear as little resemblance to reality as "I love everybody".
Abdul El-Sayed: “When AIPAC drops $30M on a race, you know why that is? It’s a $30M downpayment on a vote to send $3B somewhere else. And where does that go? To a foreign government that’s done genocide and apartheid and now has taken us to a war for the goal of annexing Southern… pic.twitter.com/RfZGcrsXPt
It's astonishing that a nuclear power would commit genocide while ignoring Palestinians in Jordan and the rest of the Palestinian diaspora. The habit of warning residents to vacate ahead of a ground assault or air strikes? This is no way to conduct genocide. As explained in 2021 by Raphael Cohen-Almagor of the Middle East Study Group of the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, & World Affairs
Unlike the Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, Israeli
Palestinians are entitled by law to enjoy the same citizenship rights as the
Jewish citizens of Israel. The Israeli Palestinians constitute a significant
minority in Israel: 21% of the population. I will differentiate between full
citizenship and formal citizenship, arguing that the Israeli Palestinians enjoy
formal but not full citizenship. I detail the areas in which Israel needs to
invest to make the Palestinians full citizens. It is argued that while Israeli
Palestinians are discriminated against, there is no apartheid in Israel.
Apartheid exists in the occupied territories....
Critics of Israel should clearly distinguish between the
Israeli occupation of the West Bank, where Palestinians are separated from
Israelis who reside there and where Palestinians are routinely subjected to
oppressive regulations of the occupation, and the condition of Israeli
Palestinians inside the Green Line. As far as Israel’s Palestinian citizens are
concerned, the apartheid argument does not stand. While Israeli Palestinians do
not always receive equal treatment and they de facto at times are discriminated
against, Israeli Palestinians do not live under anything that resembles South
African apartheid.
According to Open Secrets, as of 2024, AIPAC was the 191st largest lobby in Washington, D.C. and from 2016-2026, nine countries spent more on lobbying than did Israel. But with the anti-Israel obsessives, it's always "AIPAC" and "foreign government."
And it has become widely accepted that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pulled the strings that pulled Donald Trump into the war in Iran. However, the President's decision to launch Operation Epic Fury in lae February
in a joint operation with Israel followed
weeks of behind-the-scenes pressure from Israel and Saudi Arabia, the
Washingron Post reported on Sunday, citing accounts from officials and regional
sources.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly pushed for
strikes against Iran, whileSaudi Arabia's role appeared more complex.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman reportedly made
several private phone calls to Trump over the past month, pushing for an attack
despite publicly endorsing a diplomatic solution, the Washington Post reported.
Simultaneously, Riyadh released a statement that the state
would not allow its territory to be used in the event of an attack.
Salman reportedly warned US officials that if the strike
didn't happen soon, Iran would come away stronger and more dangerous.
That shouldn't have been surprising given that both Israel and Saudi Arabia consider Iran their mortal enemy. And it didn't hurt that the president's son-in-law has extensive financial involvement, including a $2 billion infusion of funds from the Saudi Public Investment Fund to the Kushner's Affinity private equity firm, with the Kingdom. Good work, if you can get it.
There is a lot to dislike about the foreign policy of the Israeli government, beginning with the guy, the Prime Minister, ultimately responsible for it. However, a distinction needs to be made between that nation's current leaders and the nation itself, just as there are differences between the Trump Administration and the United States of America. There are a few Democrats who understand that, but their voices are being drowned out.
Abdul el-Sayed, Hasan Piker's pal, is not among those making a cogent and rational argument against current Israeli policy. There are varied reasons for that, but we should acknowledge that one of them is the Jewish thing.
Oh, get a room. Sally Jenkins, reportedly an award-winning journalist, writes in a recent column in The Atlantic
Suavity is a sorely missed ingredient in the American
presidency. The effortless charm of a Roosevelt or a Reagan, a Bush or a
Clinton, projected a particular brand of power. Suave means a kind of athletic
ease and self-command in difficult, spotlighted circumstances, the assurance
that solutions are at hand if only we all hold our composure and act
right-headedly. Here was the ultra-suave Barack Obama’s message to the
basketball player Caitlin Clark in a small but noteworthy exchange over the
WNBA All-Star weekend: It never hurts to be winsome. In fact, it can help you
win.
Almost unbelievably, it goes downhill from there.
You can read in her piece about the soiree of the ex-President and Clark's Indiana Fever as the team was "milling around an indoor court at the newly opened Obama Presidential Center on Chicago's South Side." Obama, the breathless Jenkins recounted, was suave enough "to gently remind them of certain truths." When he spoke to Clark, there was "a sweetness in the moment, a subtle teaching. In the nicest way, Obama shored Clark up..."
Jenkins remarks that the young superstar guard
can be either mesmerizing to watch or tiresome, depending on
how aggrieved she feels on the day. Clark has complained that she is
intentionally targeted with hard fouls—and sometimes she is, but not because
she’s white. Mauling is the guaranteed, time-honored way to stop an otherwise
insuperable player.
Highlights from video and television suggest that Clark can be mesmerizing to watch or tiresome and is sometimes "intentionally targeted with hard fouls." Further, Jenkins comments, "mauling is the guaranteed, time-honored way to stop an ohtewise insuperable player."
I don't watch WNBA games. But if the journalist believes that "mauling is the guaranteed, time-honored way to stop" a great player, she has not watched the National Basketball Association much in the past quarter century. The men often play an o'le defense (defense, optional), much to the annoyance of most of us in middle-age or above. And when the ball handler is a star, it is even more common for the defender (word used loosely) to make only a disinterested effort at stopping him. (If Jenkins were referring specifically to the women's league, she would not have used "time-honored" and would have clarified her remark.)
Nonetheless, she really is more interested in aleging that the mauling of Clark is "not because she's white."
But we don't know that, and Jenkins makes no effort to explain why she believes that. It is very likely that jealousy is involved. Though there have been seveal excellent players in the NBA, all have gone under the radar, elicing little attention or endorsements. Caitlin Clark joins the league, garners tremendous publicity and while lighting up the league, reaps endorsements and credit for making the WNBA a hot ticket (or at least much hotter than in the past).
Gun to head, I would say that race and/or the sexuality (straight) of Clark plays a role. However, that's only speculation- I would not assume, unlike Jenkins. I admit I may be wrong; she leaves no doubt of her certainty.
She also is certain about the ex-President. The article was not only about Jenkins' perception that the player embodies a sense of entitlement but also about Barack Obama's awesomeness. The latter "gave her grace" and "a lesson in how to be winning."
explores the rise and fall of President Barack Obama’s
“reset” policy toward Russia, highlighting its conciliatory approach and
strategic missteps. Obama sought to improve US-Russia relations, leveraging
cooperation on arms control, counterterrorism, and nuclear nonproliferation.
However, his administration underestimated Russia’s expansionist ambitions,
particularly in Ukraine, where limited sanctions and non-lethal aid failed to
deter Russia’s aggression. The reset policy, rooted in Obama’s consequentialist
worldview, prioritized avoiding escalation but overlooked long-term security
risks. Ultimately, the policy’s shortcomings contributed to strained
US-Russia relations, emboldened Moscow’s neo-imperialist aspirations, and left
lasting negative impacts on European and global security.
In early 2012, President Obama assured outgoing Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that he would have "more flexibility" in dealing with Russia once he was re-elected later that year. Medvedev told Obama that he'd relay the information to incoming president Vladimir Putin.
Message received. Russia in 2014 annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine's eastern Donbas region, part of which still is occupied by the Kremlin. The US response, consisting of mild sanctions, was tepid.
According to Watergate journalist Bob Woodward's forthcoming
book, War, (President Joe) Biden expressed discontent during a private conversation late last
year over how his former running mate handled Russian troops invading Ukraine's
eastern Donbas region in February 2014. At the time, Biden was serving as vice
president under former President Barack Obama.
"They f***** up in 2014," Woodward quoted Biden
saying to a close friend in December 2023, according to the Associated Press,
who obtained a copy of Woodward's book before its publishing date of October
15. "Barack never took [Russian President Vladimir Putin] seriously."
Biden is also quoted as telling the friend that the White
House "never should have let Putin just walk in there" and that
Washington "did nothing" when Russia invaded.
Many Ukrainians consider the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 merely a continuation of the war begun in 2014. This is the particular "brand of power projected" by four presidents, whom she believes include Barack Obama and not Joe Biden. Yet, President Biden did what President Obama did not do and chose to defend Ukraine aggesively. As Sally Jenkins will tell you, Barack Obama knows "winning"- he did it twice. Unwittingly, he helped Vladimir Putin also do it.
To be fair, this fellow posted his tweet on Monday, July 20.
I'll tell you what kind of Democratic Party I don't want. I don't want a Democratic Party that denies Israel's right to exist, supports Hamas and Hezbollah, questions Western values and engages in Kremlin apologia. If my party starts hugging tankies and anti-Zionists, I am out. https://t.co/877P51Zval
Ben Rhodes probably doesn't care whether Israel comes or goes. Melat Kiros, who defeated progressive incumbent Diana DeGette in Colorado for the Democratic nomination for US Senate, would like t see Israel evaporate. Dariza Avila Chevalier, the anti-Semitic, anti-interracial marriage, pro-Hamas Democratic nominee for the House of Representatives, would love to see both Israel and the USA destroyed. Then there is Zohran Mandami, who on October 8, 2023 posted
I mourn the hundreds of people killed across Israel and
Palestine in the last 36 hours. Netanyahu’s declaration of war, the Israeli
government’s decision to cut electricity to Gaza, and Knesset members calling
for another Nakba will undoubtedly lead to more violence and suffering in the
days and weeks to come. The path to a just and lasting peace can only begin by
ending the occupation and dismantling apartheid.
And he is the reasonable one, compared to Kiros,Chevalier, and a host of others. The day after Israel gets pummeled by terrorists who killed more than 100 people because the latter were Jewish, the man who would go on to become mayor of the largest city in the country condemns Israel. Hey, it's not Mamdani's fault those partygoers were Jewish!
The way things are going, Israel may not be around in twenty years. However, that's not because of anti-Semites of the left because, as was announced on Wdenesday
The Trump administration signed an agreement with Saudi
Arabia to develop a nuclear program, even as the White House escalates its war
in Iran aimed at destroying that it's nuclear capabilities.
The U.S. Department of Energy described the agreement as one
that would allow Saudi Arabia to develop its civilian energy nuclear program
and give U.S. companies "great access" to related commercial deals.
Few details about the arrangement, which Congress has not
yet approved, have been made public. But former officials and members of the
nuclear community said it is a major shift in U.S. policy and risks
accelerating a nuclear arms race in an already volatile region. Here's what to
know about the deal and its potential impact on the war in Iran.
The agreement may allow U.S. companies to build uranium
enrichment facilities in Saudi Arabia to supply its nuclear reactors. U.S.
companies would provide additional technical expertise. The deal could mean
Saudi Arabia would not have to import its nuclear fuel and it could provide a
pathway for it at a later date to enrich uranium on its own.
The agreement would last for 30 years. If enacted, it could
make U.S. companies billions of dollars.
Enriched uranium can fuel power plants. It can also be used
to make nuclear bombs. U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said the agreement
upholds "the highest standards of nuclear safety and
nonproliferation," but the deal abandons key nonproliferation benchmarks,
including by limiting inspections by international nuclear experts.
Thomas Countryman, a former assistant secretary of state for
international security and nonproliferation, said the deal "reverses 50
years of U.S. leadership in the global nonproliferation architecture."
Laura Kennedy, a former U.S. ambassador and acting U.S.
representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency, warned that the
agreement "would set a dangerous precedent" across the region.
After Trump decided to give the Wahabbi regime in Saudi Arabia a thoroughfare to a nuclear weapon, thus gravely endangering Israel's long-term security , Wednesday brought better news as presidential presss secretary Karoline Leavitt declared "if they don't join the Abraham Accords, the deal is off."
Brainchild of the first Trump Administration, the Abraham Accords include Israel, the United Arab Emitates, and Morocco. Sudan, Kazakhstan, and Syria have expressed interest. So, too, did Saudi Arabia, at least until the Hamas-Israel war, whereupon the Kingdom decided that Israel would have to be serious at creating a Palestinian state before it would join.
History, hopefully, won't repeat itself. But it's valuable to recall, as the Times of Israel reported last month, that
The Hamas terror group carried out its October 7, 2023,
attack on Israel partly in order to thwart the Jewish state’s rapprochement
with Saudi Arabia, according to seized documents.
The internal Hamas materials were published by the Meir Amit
Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, a government-controlled think
tank, and then aired by the Kan public broadcaster on Sunday.
In the years and months leading up to the attack, it was
widely reported that the oil-rich kingdom was considering normalization with
Israel, along the lines of the US-brokered Abraham Accords with other Arab
states.
A Times of Israel report last year confirmed that, on the
eve of the October 7 attack, Washington and Riyadh had already reached
understandings regarding concessions Israel would have to make vis-Ã -vis the
Palestinians for Riyadh to normalize relations with Jerusalem.
In a meeting held by Hamas leadership in the Gaza Strip in
February 2022, the Iran-backed terror group, which had long functioned as the
enclave’s de facto government, decided to establish a new office, tasked with
overseeing efforts to thwart normalization between Israel and its erstwhile
enemies.
Hamas decided to heat up the conflict in Gaza as well as the
West Bank and East Jerusalem, “in order to thwart the Saudi kingdom’s process
of normalization,” according to the minutes of the meeting.
The terror group noted, as precedent for its campaign, that
the Second Intifada – a deadly, years-long campaign of suicide bombings and
other terror attacks in the early 2000s – was “one of the chief factors leading
to the blow-up of the normalization process presented through the Arab Peace
Initiative.”
In 2023, the group decided that its renewed attempt to stir
disorder in the region was not bearing enough fruit. In late September, the
group’s leadership held another meeting, chaired by Gaza chief – and October 7
mastermind – Yahya Sinwar….
On October 2, 2023, Sinwar told assembled leadership that,
in light of the threat posed by normalization with Saudi Arabia, there was no
way around what he described as “an exceptional action” by Hamas and its
partners in the “Axis of Resistance,” referring to Iran and its regional
proxies.
At this meeting, the Hamas leadership decided to move
forward with the surprise attack on Israel.
Hamas deserves full blame for the terrorist attack of October 7, 2023. However, it would not have taken place- at least not at that time- had there not been a serious effort to bring Saudi Arabia into the Abrahma Accords. Nor would the time been ripe had not some one or ones in the Israeli government ignored the warning signals about an incipient attack from Hamas.
Israel, and especially its Prime Minister, believe a nuclear armed Iran is a grave threat to Israel, and it probably is. However, that will probe to have been child's play- with or without the Abraham Accords- if Saudi Arabia, the largest country in the region by area, obtain weapons-grade uranium. If it begins to enrich uranium for weapons, Saudi Arabia could choose to drop out of the Abraham Accords. And irony triumphant, the threat posed by that nation would be at the initiative of Benjamin Netanyahu's bestie, one Donald J. Trump
As CNN would say, BREAKING NEWS: Israel has attacked Jordan from the air and the sea.
That's not true, of course. Nonetheless, that's what Bernie Sanders would have you believe.
But first: second gneration British-American, Orthodox Jew and Trump supporter Alexander Shabbos Kestenbaum argues that Isael is not committing genocide because the allegation is "the whole point is to kill Palestinians." However
- "after more than three years of fighting, Israel hasn't been able to kill more than 70,000 people," some of whom are Hamas terrorists;
- "zero of the Palestinians in the West Bank have been touched";
- "two million Palestinian Arabs of Israel have full equal rights within Israel;";
- "the United Nations own estimates are over 1.4 million tons of food have entered Gaza since October 7, which actually exceed the pre-war daily averages," much of it hijacked by Hamas;
- the civilian to combatant casulty ratio (is) lower than any othe war fought in modern warfare";
- Israel is inoculating Gazan children against polio.
The idea that Gazans, one of the most radicalized groups of people on planet Earth, are experiencing a genocide, is detached from reality.
A mass psyop has convinced you it's true.
Figured I'd take 80 seconds to debunk it while overlooking the beautiful Tel Aviv beach! pic.twitter.com/y6oh03d1Or
Not only has no Palestinian in the West Bank, though the region is under Israeli occupation, "been touched." Ramallah, according to Wikipedia, is the "financial and commercial center" of the Palestinian Authority and administrative capital of Palestine. The World Population Review estimates the population of "Palestine" to have been 5,069,692 in 2020; 5,692,790 in 2025; and 5,589,623 in 2026. The population of Palestine is increasing. That's a heck of a bad job of genocide for any country but especially for a military power such as Israel. A really miserable job.
Yet, at 1:36 in this video, Vermont senator Sanders asserts (emphasis his)
Israel suffered a terrible attack a number of years ago. They had the right to defend themselves. BUT they did not have the right to go to war against the entire Palestine population.
If Bernie Sanders mean what he says, he believes Israel has been attacking the nation of Jordan, which is approximately half ethnic Palestinian. He would be as ignorant as much of the well-meaning, ill-informed supporters at his rallies are.
However, Senator Sanders is not ignorant. He must have at least a clue of what constitutes "genocide" and that Israel's actions don't fall under that umbrella. Unfortunately, making a cogent, reasoned argument against the Netanyahu government is nothing which interests him. Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel, who as with Sanders are non-young Jewish males, have done so, but Bernie Sanders cannot be bothered.
Sanders, and others with even more hateful views toward our Mideast ally, are entitled to their viewpoint. They're entitled even to be wrong, bandying about the terms "genocide" and "Israeli apartheid," the latter smear all the rage a year or so ago. Nevertheless, the rest of us are entitled to inform them that they're ignorant, bigoted, or dishonest as the case(s) may be.
The typical daily question posed by Sirius XM and CNN guy Michael Smerconish is misleading, ambiguous, disingenous, or fails to be mutually exclusive and exhaustive. The one on Saturday did not disappoint, also because it was provocative.
Back in the summer of 1992, then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton
criticized rapper Sister Souljah after she made offensive remarks about blacks
killing whites instead of each other. The moment quickly entered the political
lexicon as shorthand for a politician rebuking an extremist in his or her base
in order to demonstrate to independents that they are not beholden to the
party’s core special interests.
However, the there are two problems with the question: They are what "need" is and whether we're talking long-term or short-term; and on what issues the break would be. Those who themselves identify, or whom otheres identify, as democratic socialists break with mainstream Democrats on both economic issues, such as health care and the role of government in the private sector, and on Israel.
If someone is to do to democratic socialists what Bill Clinton did to Sister Souljah, it would have to be someone well respected across the Party. Neither Democrati leader- Hakeem Jeffries or Chuck Schumer- has that credibility, especially since the Platner disaster in Maine, where party leadership cleared the field to for Governor Janet Mills to run against the upstart. Mills ran a disinterested campaign, Platner was easily nominated, and his campaign proceeded to blow up.
The two most obvious candidates to take on this task have the same surname. However, Michelle Obama generally has been loathe to get intimately involved in politics, and her husband knows that he would be staking his reputation, possibly incurring a backlash, only for the benefit of his Party. Were he to take such a risk, he wouldn't be "Barack Obama."
Of course, there is the matter of on what basis to condemn these controversial, divisive extremists. It could be on a) their embrace of economic populism; b) their embrace of "Palestine" and denunciation of Israel, or c) both.
Van Jones, with whom I've often disagreed, evidently would go with (b). Whatever the political wisdom- and that's very difficult to predict- the policy wisdom is right on target. In the tweet/video below, he points out
...if everybody could see a doctor when they got sick, get a
good, free education and breathe clean air — would that represent progress?
Yes. Those are PROGRESSIVE ideas.
They are NOT the same thing. And the difference matters.
Some defend the far left by claiming they only want
Nordic-style social democracy. If that were true, I might applaud them. I want
those policies, too! But what does universal healthcare have to do with Hamas?
With abolishing all law enforcement? With erasing all borders? With treating
every wealthy person as a villain? Ideas matter. And these are terrible ideas.
I'm tired of being told that, to be a progressive, I now must swear allegiance to crazy ideas.
I'm a strong Democrat, with a winning bipartisan track record. I'm rooted in progressive ideals and policies: criminal justice reform, Green New Deal, Medicare for All, free education,… pic.twitter.com/foPRXip7fb
That should get the ball rolling. However, it might be even better to distinguish between the haters of Israel who understand that the Democratic Party is necessary to advance progressive ideas and the haters who do not.
The New York Timesasked New York City mayor Zohran Mamdan if there is room in the Party for AIPAC and replied "If they are Democrats and they run as Democrats and they win as Democrats, then they should be part of the Democratic Party." Asked on CNN about Mamdani's response, Abdul el-Sayed, running against Haley Stevens for the Democratic nomination for US Senate stated"I want our tax dollars spent in Michigan on our schools and on our health care. And the idea that somebody wants to vote to send that money away, to me, just seems -- seems to be an anathema."
You read that correctly. In el-Sayed's view, Israel is committing genocide and AIPAC is supporting that and responsible for failing schools and inadequate health care in Michigan. He also was joined on the campaign trail by the virulent American-hating anti-Semite Hasan Piker. A thought: people so blind with bigotry that they're unable to talk about the daily needs of Michigander cannot be reasoned with.
Times change, issues change, personalities are different, and 2026 is not 1992. It's complicated. Any effort to denounce individuals or groups which believe Israel is the devil incarnate would be perilous. But if, as appears likely, there must be a reckoning. Van Jones recognizes the side that must be taken..
I guess it depends on the meaning of "pretty well".
BREAKING 🚨 Bill Maher: “We did the move in Venezuela, which that one you have to say worked pretty well.”
Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA): “Yeah, well remember people lost their sh*t over Venezuela. Nobody talks about Venezuela anymore... We’re not talking about Gaza anymore, and… pic.twitter.com/i7oUOvAaI0
Nicholas Maduro was snatched from Caracas on January 3 and brought to Washington, D.C. to be prosecuted for being a "narco trafficker." He was replaced, as required by constitution in Venezuela and Donlad Trump, by Vice President Delcy Rodriguez, who like Maduro has been a part of the Chavista regime, which has ruled the country for over a quarter century. The ousted president
was not the head of a drug trafficking organization, but
rather the facilitator and protector of a corruption system that allowed
generals and senior political figures to profit from the drug trade. That
system – the Chavista regime – remains in place, although the architect of the
hybrid criminal governance model is now on trial in New York.
RodrÃguez, though outside the praetorian core of the
Chavista regime and not facing any US indictments, is believed to have been
involved in criminal activity, corruption, and even drug trafficking. The
criminal dimension of the tightrope she is walking involves preventing public
scandals of corruption and drug trafficking that might provoke further US
intervention, while still allowing the flow of criminal rents to regime figures
to preserve loyalty.
That doesn't sound like "pretty well." On a positive note, the Trump Administration has been assisting disaster relief in Venenzuela. However
David Smilde, a Venezuela researcher at Tulane University,
said the earthquake has exposed a deeper weakness in the Venezuelan state.
“They’ve had the capacity to repress people and jail
people,” Smilde said, “but they don’t seem to be in a position to offer even
some of the most basic elements of disaster relief."
The military is one of the most powerful and well-funded
parts of the Venezuelan state. But Smilde added that it has been shaped less
around emergency response than around regime survival.....
Smilde said RodrÃguez’s government moved quickly at first —
declaring a state of emergency, communicating with allies and accepting aid
offers from different countries, including former political foes. But what came
after, he said, revealed a government with very little capacity to deliver
basic disaster relief.
I don't attribute the view of Maher and Fetterman that things have worked out well in Venezuela to anything but ignorance. There has been little attention paid to that nation since Maduro was arrested in what could be considered a law enforcement operation rather than an intervention in a foreign, sovereign state. No American life was lost and in our country, we would applaud anything the military does as long as Americans aren't killed.
But there is a lesson here. Maher referred to the $330 million for Donald's new ballroom as "couch money" and Fetterman quipped "if he came out for ice cream and lazy Sundays, we would f*ckin' hate it." The Senator has stated "right now, our party is governed by the TDS (i.e., Trump Derangement Syndrome) and now it's made it virtually impossible without being punished as a Democrat to agree something's good, or I agree with the other side."
The Venezuelan operation, quick and dirty, painless and innocuous, was the foreign policy equivalent of ice cream and lazy Sundays, politically incorrect to question. Yet, it accomplished nothing of value and helped reinforce our nation's reputation as a malign bully. It stands as an example of how the default position for a Trump action should be that it is self-serving and likely to harm ourselves and others.
We need to replace Trump Derangement Syndrome with Trump Is Deranged Syndrome.
So what are you going to do about it, big guy? DW, a "German state-funded television network and public service international broadcaster funded" by the federal govenment notes
US President Donald Trump delivered a primetime speech on
Thursday assailing the country's voting system and making several unverified
claims about the electoral process.
He touted new declassified evidence about alleged Chinese
interference in the 2020 election, dredged up an old case in Michigan about
voter fraud and repeated a campaign trail favorite: that noncitizens are
illegally registered to vote.
The vast majority of it was untrue, misleading, or distorted again but this is Donald Trump, thus not unexpected. Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night shall stay the President from strenuously trying to pull the wool over the eyes of American citizens. One of his more interesting claims was
Raw intelligence obtained by the FBI in 2020, yet buried by
rogue bureaucrats, stated that China's activities even included an attempt to
manufacture illegal ballots for Joe Biden. Documents show that during this
period, dozens of significant CIA and NSA reports about China's election
targeting were kept out of the presidential briefing.
These were briefings I would get almost every day; everything was kept out that was of importance. One email among intelligence analysts admitted that they had, quote, deliberately massaged the presidential daily briefing to withhold information regarding Chinese activities related to the election. Another official inside the FBI wrote that she was running, quote, a shadow government, unquote, to keep intelligence about China's election meddling from becoming known and to keep it away from the honorable press.
In an annotated transcript of the President's speech, Zachary B. Wolf and Annette Choi of CNN note "unverified intelligence is frequently incorrect" and "there's no evidence that China actually sought to manufacture ballots."
Moreover, "Trump is essentially alleging a coverup here. It will be interesting to see how or whether the administration pursues this inside the intelligence community."
The Administration is seeking indictments against six members of Congress, each of them "traitors to our Country," according to President Trump. Reuters reported last November- a mere ten months into his second term
At least 470 people, organizations and institutions have
been targeted for retribution since Trump took office – an average of more than
one a day. Some were singled out for punishment; others swept up in broader
purges of perceived enemies. The count excludes foreign individuals,
institutions and governments, as well as federal employees dismissed as part of
force reductions.
Promptly after Trump took office last year, at least a dozen members of the Justice Department who had worked on criminal prosecution of Donald were fired. Kash Patel, now the FBI director, took aim at the agency in a 2023 book. He named sixty individuals allegedly a part of an "Executive Branch deep state," and at least 17 have faced political retribution, fired and/or stripped of their security clearance.
And now, the President is alleging a conspiracy right under his nose. Intelligence analysts who had "deliberately massaged the presidential daily briefing to withhold information regarding Chinese activities related to the (2020) election." And there was an FBI official he claims admitted to "a shadow government" to keep intelligence about China's election meddling from becoming known and to keep it" hidden.
"It will be interesting," the CNN reporters write, "to see how or whether the administration pursues this." Interesting, too, it will be to see what the President drops on China after his strenuous, albeit dishonest, effort to convince Americans that mainland China has been "meddling" in our elections.
President Trump could re-impose tariffs on China. That would prompt retaliation and might not be beneficial- but when has that deterred Donald?
Chinese president Xi Jinping is scheduled to visit the White House on September 24. However, after they spoke at Xi's walled compound in May, Trump declared the two had "become really a friend"- and why interfere with such a lovely frienship?
The President also could encourage fellow Republicans to support the Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) Online Act, sponsored by senators Scott (R-FL) and Baldwin (D-Wis), which would "ensure that all goods sold online list their country of origin." This bill has the advantage that it wouldn't be (and wouldn't seem to be) a direct attack on China, but would remind consumers that many of our goods are manufactured there, and would steer a few buyers away from those and toward others.
Odds are that the President won't do any of this. In early 2025, then-DNI director Tulsi Gabbard reduced the Foreign Malign Influence Center, "the last U.S. federal government organ dedicated to tracking and analyzing State-sponsored efforts to interfere in U.S. institution, elections, and society." Additionally, the Adminstration "shut down related units at the State Department, Departmentof Homeland Security, FBI, and Department of Justice."
To be generous: Donald Trump is not at all interested in election security. To be realistic: Trump prefers to take the cops off the beat to encourage foreign interference in elections, as one leg in the stool to convince Americans that any election lost by Republicans is rigged. His speech of July 16 was a major part of that effort, but it's likely that far worse is yet to come.
Hey, everyone! You, too, can be as stupid as a bedpost and
be a multi-millionaie many times over.
In the video attached to the tweet below, Bill Maher and Stephen A. Smith discuss
how Donald J. Trump isn't really such a bad guy. Maher remarks "... And also had some genuine black
friends. And black folks who like
him. Because it's complicated. Life is
complicated."
When one tries to tell us that evidence of friendship with
black people proves that someone is not racist, one is very ignorant. The
"some of his best freinds are colored" of Maher devolves into the "he likes
sports, so he's not racist" of Smith. The latter responds to the host by stating
Trump and I werr friendly before he ran for President. He
used to have me at boxing matches, particularly during the Tyson fights at
Trump casinos. He would be at the Knicks game and stuff like that.
O.K., O.K. If you like sports, you can't be racist. Got it.
Smith contined
And if we were being totally
honest, all the brothers found him to be cool. They found him to be very cool. So he knew his sports,
alright, says what he feels. He bucked the establishment, which we loved, and
we gravitated to that.
Oh, he knew his sports, alright. In the early '80s, the United States FootballLeague had serious potential. Then when
Trump purchased the New Jersey Generals in 1984, it
initially seemed like a typical vanity purchase by a wealthy businessman. He
immediately made waves, signing Walker to a then-astronomical contract and
filling sports pages with bold predictions.
But Trump had a problem: he didn’t actually want a spring
football team. He wanted what he’d been denied multiple times—an NFL franchise.
The NFL’s old-guard owners had repeatedly rejected his attempts to join their
exclusive club, and that rejection gnawed at him.
So Trump developed a different strategy. If he couldn’t join
the NFL, maybe he could force them to let him in....
His plan was audacious and, in hindsight, catastrophically
flawed. He would push the USFL to abandon its successful spring schedule and
move to the fall, directly challenging the NFL. The collision would either
force a merger (giving Trump his NFL team) or create enough chaos that the NFL
would buy out USFL franchises (also giving Trump his NFL team).
Most of the owners, who wisely were loathe to go up directly
against the powerful NFL, resisted. However
Trump was persuasive and relentless. He painted a vision of
major network television deals and packed stadiums. He convinced enough owners
that the league voted to move to fall starting in 1986.
It was a decision that would kill the league.
But, hey, he liked the sports and "bucked the
establishment," so all is cool.
Maher then remarks
And also of a cerrtain age, and there's like, a certain
understanding that men- white men of that age, they're not- they're going to be
a little grandpa. We don't say that anymore but was he really in his heart
hateful? I don't think his motivation is "I don't like black people."
His motivation is everybody must love me.
Well, yes, we all understand that Donald's concern never has
been for others but for himself, and at the expense of others, which Trump
views as proof that he is benefitting. Donald has a sort of perverse appeal, yet as this period's most common cliche has it, "two things
can be true at once."
MUST SEE 🚨: Stephen A. Smith and Bill Maher disputed the notion that Trump is a "terrible racist."
Smith: "If we’re being totally honest, all the brothers found him to be cool. They found him to be very cool. So, let’s be clear. Because he knew his sports, all right? He would… pic.twitter.com/kNCzLhTVNk
This is Donald J. Trump, raised in Queens, New York City, and heir to $413 million. He has bragged that he graduated first in his class at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School and, though a lie, Trump did graduate from the prestigious Philadelphia institution. This was no Roscoe P. Coltrane of Hazzard County, Kentucky or soemone's uneducated grandpa. Not everyone gets to experience an exceedingly privileged, urban background and exhibit behavior excused as "grandpa."
Donald has done everything he could for several years now to convince us that he is a racist, short of declaring "I am a racist," a declaration which thus far has proven a bridge too far even for him. He did, however, channel the "blood poisoning" of Adolph Hitler's "Mein Kampf," when in an interview in December of 2023 he remarked of immigrants crossing our southern border
Nobody has any idea where these people are comming from. And we know they come from prisons. We know they come from mental institutions and centters, islands we know they're terrorists. Nobody has ever seen anything like we're witnessing right now. It is a ver sad thing for our country. It's poisoning he blood of our country. It's so bad and people are coming in with disease, people are coming in with- with every posssible thing that you can have.
"Poisoning the blood of our country" is textbook racism, not even reducible to a "joke" the President claims to have made when he's called on something he has said. We learned years ago that "My New Order," a collection of speeches of the Third Reich's Strongman, was one of Trump's prize possessions. And more recently, when Haberman and Swan noted that the President compares himself to Mao,Stalin, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan and, of course, Hitler.
Combine all of the above with the President restoring Confederate names to nine military bases and his Administration removing slavery exhibits from Indepence Hall in Philadelphia and other efforts to erase black history, and the pattern is clear. The signs are flashing red. It's not only their problem, but our problem also, that individuals such as Bill Maher and Stephen A. Smith are color blind.
