Social Media

An off topic and unapproved social media link has been removed. Euro Med Monitor is not a credible source of information on this forum.

A New Mexico judge has denied Alec Baldwin's motion to dismiss the involuntary manslaughter indictment stemming from the fatal 2021 shooting on the set of the film "Rust." The incident resulted in the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and injury to director Joel Souza, bringing intense scrutiny and legal challenges to Baldwin and the production team. The case has been fraught with controversy since the day of the shooting. During a scene rehearsal on the western movie set in New Mexico, a firearm held by Baldwin discharged a live round, leading to Hutchins' tragic death and Souza's injury. Baldwin has maintained that he was unaware the gun was loaded with live ammunition, sparking a heated debate over safety protocols on film sets. In January 2023, Baldwin pleaded not guilty to the initial charges of involuntary manslaughter. These charges were dropped later in the year due to prosecutors citing insufficient time and evidence to proceed. However, new developments in the investigation led to Baldwin being charged and indicted again in January 2024. Baldwin’s legal team moved to dismiss the indictment in March, accusing the prosecutors of misconduct during the grand jury process. They argued that the prosecutors presented false and misleading testimony, withheld exculpatory evidence, and gave improper and prejudicial instructions to the grand jury. Baldwin's lawyers claimed that the prosecution had "publicly dragged Baldwin through the cesspool created by their improprieties," disregarding the severe nature of the charges that had been hanging over Baldwin for more than two years. Special prosecutors in New Mexico countered these allegations, defending their handling of the case. They argued that Baldwin’s behavior on the "Rust" set contributed to the safety lapses that led to the shooting. The prosecutors asserted that they had followed proper procedures and there was no prosecutorial bad faith involved. The judge's decision to deny Baldwin's motion was based on a detailed review of the grand jury transcripts from January 18 and 19, 2024. The judge concluded that there was no evidence of intentional misconduct or dishonesty by the prosecuting attorney. In the ruling, the judge stated, "After review of transcripts from the January 18, 2024 and January 19, 2024 grand jury presentations, the Court does not find that the ‘prosecuting attorney assisting the grand jury’ engaged in ‘intentional misconduct’ reflecting ‘dishonesty of belief, purpose, or motive’ in the course of the attorney’s ‘presentation of evidence to the grand jury.’" This ruling keeps Baldwin firmly in the legal spotlight as he prepares to face trial. In a brief statement to CNN following the judge’s decision, Baldwin’s legal team, represented by Luke Nikas and Alex Spiro, expressed their readiness for the upcoming court proceedings: "We look forward to our day in court." The legal challenges extend beyond Baldwin. Hannah Gutierrez Reed, the film's armorer responsible for the safety and storage of firearms on the set, was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in March. She was sentenced to 18 months in prison and is currently appealing her conviction. Reed's role in the events leading up to the shooting has been a critical component of the investigation, with many arguing that she bore significant responsibility for ensuring the firearm was safe to use. The "Rust" shooting incident has also sparked broader discussions about safety standards in the film industry. The tragic death of Hutchins highlighted the potential dangers of working with firearms on set and has led to calls for stricter regulations and safety protocols to prevent similar accidents in the future. As Baldwin's case proceeds, it will undoubtedly continue to draw significant public and media attention. The outcome of this high-profile case may not only impact Baldwin's career but also set a precedent for how legal accountability is addressed in cases of accidental shootings in the entertainment industry. The judge’s decision to uphold the indictment signifies that the court found sufficient grounds to proceed with the charges against Baldwin. Credit: CNN 2024-05-25 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Northwestern University has found itself under intense scrutiny due to its substantial financial ties with Qatar, a country with controversial affiliations and support for Hamas, a designated terrorist organization. A recent report from nonprofit watchdog Open the Books reveals that Northwestern has received nearly $690 million from Qatar since 2007. This revelation comes as Northwestern President Michael Schill prepares to testify before the House Education and Workforce Committee, addressing concerns over campus antisemitism and concessions made to certain student demands. Qatar’s donations to Northwestern primarily benefit the university’s satellite campus in Education City, Doha, known as NU-Q. This campus offers bachelor’s degrees in journalism and communication and maintains a significant partnership with Al Jazeera, the Qatari state-owned media outlet. The collaboration between NU-Q and Al Jazeera provides journalism students with opportunities to engage with leading media professionals and gain industry insights. However, this partnership has drawn criticism due to Al Jazeera’s alleged support for Palestinian terrorism and its portrayal of Israel. Several faculty members at Northwestern in Qatar have made statements or have ties that have further fueled controversy. Khaled AL-Hroub, a professor of Middle Eastern studies, claimed on an NPR program that he had not seen credible reports indicating that Hamas killed women and children in its October 7 attack. While Northwestern initially condemned his remarks, the university later revised its statement, removing his name and clarifying that his views did not represent the institution’s official position. Rami Khouri, a member of NU-Q’s joint advisory board, has defended Palestinian stabbing attacks against Israeli civilians and characterized Hamas tactics as part of the human spirit’s arsenal. He has also made controversial comparisons between Hamas’s actions and historical Jewish resistance. Ibrahim Abusharif, another professor, has a past that includes serving as treasurer for the Quranic Literacy Institute, which the U.S. government accused of funneling money to Hamas. The organization was found liable for aiding and abetting Hamas terrorism and had assets seized by the U.S. government. The House Education and Workforce Committee has expressed concerns about Northwestern’s partnership with Al Jazeera. A group of Jewish Northwestern alumni and parents wrote to the university's board of trustees, suggesting that the partnership could violate the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, which prohibits American entities from providing training or assistance to foreign terrorist organizations. This issue is likely to be a key topic during President Schill’s testimony. In addition to funding from Qatar, Northwestern has received substantial financial support from other sources, including: Saudi Arabia: Approximately $24 million, with at least $2.2 million for Saudi student tuition. U.S. Government: Since 2018, the Department of Health and Human Services has contributed $2.6 billion, while other significant contributions include $361 million from the National Science Foundation, $256 million from the Department of Defense, $136 million from the Department of Education, and $125 million from the Department of Energy. From 2018 to 2022, Northwestern’s endowment grew by $3.3 billion, making it the eighth-largest among private American universities. Despite its significant financial growth, the university pays only a 1.4-percent tax on endowment amounts exceeding $500,000 per student. The significant financial support from Qatar to Northwestern University raises critical ethical and legal questions, especially given Qatar's associations with Hamas. As Northwestern continues to expand its global footprint, particularly through its campus in Qatar, it faces growing scrutiny from both government bodies and concerned stakeholders over the implications of these financial relationships. The upcoming testimony of President Schill will be a pivotal moment in addressing these concerns and determining the future direction of the university’s international engagements. Credit: National Review 2024-05-25 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a significant move reflecting the ongoing nationwide debate over abortion rights, Louisiana Republicans have passed a bill that criminalizes the possession of abortion pills without a prescription. The bill, which classifies the medications mifepristone and misoprostol as dangerous controlled substances, is now awaiting the signature of Republican Governor Jeff Landry, who is expected to approve it. The Louisiana Senate passed the bill with a 29-7 vote, following its earlier approval in the state House. Governor Landry, known for his strong anti-abortion stance, has yet to officially comment on the bill. However, he hinted at his support in a recent social media post, responding to criticism from Vice President Kamala Harris by stating, "You know you’re doing something right when @KamalaHarris criticizes you. This bill protects expectant mothers while also allowing these drugs to be prescribed to those with a valid prescription." The new legislation categorizes mifepristone and misoprostol as Schedule IV substances under Louisiana’s Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law, placing them in the same category as certain opioids, ephedrine, and antidepressants. This classification means that possession without a prescription or appropriate licensure will be illegal, carrying penalties of up to five years in prison and substantial fines. Notably, the bill includes an exemption for pregnant women possessing the pills for personal use. However, anyone assisting in obtaining the pills would be at risk of prosecution, a measure aimed at curbing the distribution and use of abortion medications without medical oversight. Abortion rights advocates argue that the bill will create significant barriers for both prescribers and pharmacists. Physicians in Louisiana will need a special license to prescribe controlled substances, and the state will meticulously track prescriptions, potentially deterring medical professionals from providing these medications. Given that abortion is nearly entirely banned in Louisiana, including the use of abortion pills, this bill seems to extend the restrictions further. The exceptions to the ban are limited to cases where the pregnancy poses a substantial risk to the mother’s life or involves a medically futile pregnancy. Despite these stringent laws, women in Louisiana have still been able to obtain abortion pills through telehealth services provided by out-of-state providers. The new bill targets the possession of these pills, even when they are obtained in advance, a practice known as "advance provision" which has become more common in states with restrictive abortion laws. The federal government, through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), does not classify mifepristone and misoprostol as controlled substances. Both drugs are approved by the FDA and have been shown to be safe and effective for their intended uses, which include not only abortion but also various other reproductive health applications. Misoprostol, in particular, is widely used for labor induction, cervical softening during surgical procedures, and the medical management of miscarriages. It is listed on the World Health Organization's Model List of Essential Medicines due to its critical role in healthcare. Anti-abortion advocates argue that medication abortions are dangerous, a point recently raised before the Supreme Court in efforts to limit access to mifepristone. However, extensive research supports the safety and efficacy of these medications. Hundreds of doctors in Louisiana have voiced opposition to the legislation, warning that it could worsen health outcomes in a state already struggling with high maternal mortality rates. They argue that further restricting access to safe and effective medications will only exacerbate these issues. The bill’s sponsor, state Senator Thomas Pressly, cited personal motivations for the legislation, revealing that his sister was a victim of a crime involving the non-consensual administration of misoprostol by her then-husband. Initially, the bill aimed to address such criminal acts, but it was later amended to include the broader classification of the drugs as controlled substances, influenced by the anti-abortion group Louisiana Right to Life. State Attorney General Liz Murrill supports the bill, highlighting concerns about abortion pills being shipped into Louisiana from outside the state and country. She emphasized that the legislation does not prevent these drugs from being prescribed and dispensed for legitimate medical reasons. Credit: The Hill 2024-05-25 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Russian President Vladimir Putin is reportedly ready to negotiate a ceasefire in Ukraine that would recognize the current frontlines, according to sources within his circle. However, he remains prepared to continue the conflict if Kyiv and Western allies do not respond favorably. This information comes from four Russian sources familiar with discussions among Putin's advisors. Three sources noted that Putin has expressed frustration over perceived Western-backed attempts to block negotiations and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's refusal to engage in talks. One senior Russian source, who has worked closely with Putin, mentioned that while Putin is ready for a ceasefire to "freeze the war," he can also fight for as long as necessary. Reuters spoke to five individuals connected to Putin at senior levels within political and business spheres. While one source did not comment on the idea of freezing the war, the others provided insights into the Kremlin's perspective. Dmitry Peskov, Putin's spokesperson, reiterated Russia's openness to dialogue aimed at achieving its goals, asserting that the country does not desire an "eternal war." The Ukrainian foreign and defense ministries did not respond to queries. The appointment of economist Andrei Belousov as Russia's defense minister was interpreted by some Western analysts as a move to place the Russian economy on a wartime footing. This follows recent battlefield advances by Russian forces. Sources indicated that Putin believes the gains achieved thus far are sufficient to present as a victory to the Russian populace. The war, Europe's largest ground conflict since World War Two, has resulted in substantial casualties and severe economic sanctions on Russia. Putin is reportedly averse to another national mobilization due to its unpopularity. The initial call-up in September 2022 caused widespread alarm and led to a significant number of draft-age men fleeing Russia. Peskov has stated that Russia is recruiting volunteer contractors instead. The prospect of a ceasefire or peace talks remains slim. Zelenskyy has declared that peace on Putin's terms is unacceptable, vowing to reclaim lost territories, including Crimea, annexed by Russia in 2014. He signed a decree in 2022 declaring talks with Putin impossible. One source suggested no agreement would be possible while Zelenskyy is in power, barring a deal with Washington, which U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken deemed unlikely. Ukraine is preparing for talks in Switzerland next month, aimed at unifying international opinion on ending the war. Russia has not been invited, which it has criticized, arguing the talks lack credibility without its participation. Putin insists on solidifying any battlefield gains and freezing the conflict along current lines, which would leave Russia in control of significant parts of four Ukrainian regions. This arrangement falls short of Moscow's initial goals but is seen as sufficient by Putin to declare a victory. The sources indicated that prolonging the war increases the number of battle-hardened veterans returning to Russia, potentially creating societal tensions. They also noted Putin's view that continued conflict could be sustained without further mobilization due to Russia's larger population and financial incentives for military service. While Putin appears ready to negotiate a ceasefire based on current territorial holdings, he remains prepared for an extended conflict if necessary. Both Russia and Ukraine, along with their respective allies, continue to brace for ongoing hostilities, with little hope for immediate resolution. Credit: Reuters 2024-05-25 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Elon Musk's SpaceX set the stage for another mission on the quiet grounds of Vandenberg Space Force Base in California, the Falcon 9 rocket, carrying with it a payload shrouded in mystery. This was no ordinary launch; it was the commencement of NROL-146, a clandestine endeavor orchestrated on behalf of the U.S. government. With the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) at the helm, the mission aimed to deploy a constellation of satellites designed to revolutionize intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. The NRO, in a statement to Newsweek, emphasized the critical importance of constant vigilance and innovation in the face of evolving threats: "Our nation's evolving threats and challenges require constant vigilance, innovation, and investment. Therefore, the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) is developing the most capable, diverse, and resilient space-based intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) system the world has ever seen." The NROL-146 mission marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing quest for enhanced national security. With each satellite placed into orbit, the NRO inches closer to its vision of a comprehensive ISR network, capable of providing real-time data to decision-makers around the globe. Reports suggest that the mission may be linked to Starshield Satellites, a specialized iteration of SpaceX's Starlink constellation project. Starlink, originally conceived to provide global high-speed internet coverage, has found new purpose with government surveillance. The NRO's foray into satellite-based internet services reflects a strategic shift in response to geopolitical challenges. Chris Scolese, head of the NRO, shed light on the motivations behind the Starshield initiative: "We recognized that we had challenges, as we've mentioned, with Russia and China trying to deny our ability to operate in space. The other reason we needed it is we recognized that we needed to have more persistent coverage of the Earth. So, we needed to proliferate." The deployment of Starshield satellites represents a proactive measure to safeguard space operations and ensure uninterrupted Earth coverage. By bolstering communication pathways and enhancing resilience, these systems aim to fortify national security in an increasingly contested domain. Troy Meink, principal deputy director of the NRO, underscored the significance of these advancements at the annual Space Symposium: "These systems will increase timeliness of access, diversify communications pathways, and enhance our resilience." Yet, amidst the anticipation and excitement surrounding NROL-146, questions linger about the broader implications of such endeavors. As satellite constellations proliferate and surveillance capabilities expand, concerns arise regarding privacy, transparency, and the militarization of space. The secrecy shrouding NROL-146 underscores the delicate balance between national security imperatives and the principles of democratic governance. While the need for vigilance against emerging threats is undeniable, so too is the imperative to uphold civil liberties and democratic values. Credit: Newsweek 2024-05-25 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

A string of mysterious fires has ignited speculation across several NATO countries amid heightened tensions. From Germany to Denmark, Poland to the United Kingdom, industrial hubs and commercial centers have become the focal points of unexplained blazes, prompting concerns and conspiracy theories alike. In Hamburg's bustling port area, a scrap metal facility became the latest target of flames, mirroring a similar incident at a pharmaceutical office building belonging to Novo Nordisk in Copenhagen. These occurrences add to a series of puzzling fires that have engulfed sites in Lithuania, Poland, and the United Kingdom, all against the backdrop of escalating tensions between NATO and Russia due to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. While there is no concrete evidence linking Moscow to these fires, Russia's shadow looms large over at least two of the incidents. In Warsaw, the destruction of a major shopping mall prompted Polish President Donald Tusk to suggest the possibility of sabotage, hinting at Russian involvement and collaboration with Belarusian counterparts. Similarly, in Berlin, a fire at the Diehl Metall plant raised eyebrows, given its connection to the German Diehl Group, a manufacturer of IRIS-T missiles used in the Ukrainian conflict. Despite assurances that no armaments were produced at the site, suspicions lingered, fueled by the timing and context of the blaze. Across the English Channel, the United Kingdom grappled with its own fire-related controversies. A warehouse fire in Leyton, East London, linked to a Ukrainian businessman led to charges against individuals allegedly assisting Russian intelligence services. This incident, coupled with an explosion at a BAE Systems factory in South Wales, underscored the intersection of industrial sabotage and geopolitical maneuvering. In Lithuania, speculation swirled following a fire at an IKEA store, with President Gitanas Nauseda expressing concerns over potential acts of sabotage. Similarly, an explosion at a gas pipeline in northern Lithuania in 2023 raised questions about the possibility of external interference, highlighting the vulnerability of critical infrastructure to clandestine attacks. As NATO countries grapple with the aftermath of these mysterious fires, questions abound regarding their underlying causes and implications. While some point to technical malfunctions or accidents, others see a more sinister hand at play, orchestrating acts of sabotage to undermine security and sow chaos. Credit: Newsweek 2024-05-25 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a significant judicial decision on Sunday, a federal judge in Texas blocked a Biden administration rule aimed at expanding background checks for firearm sales. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk issued an injunction against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), preventing the enforcement of this rule within Texas. However, he found that the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Utah lacked standing in the case. The contested rule was set to take effect on Monday and sought to close the so-called "gun show loophole." It mandated that all individuals selling firearms for profit must be licensed and conduct background checks on buyers. This move was intended to enhance public safety by ensuring that all gun transactions, especially those occurring at gun shows and online, would be subject to the same regulatory scrutiny as those conducted by licensed dealers. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, expressed relief at the ruling. "I am relieved that we were able to secure a restraining order that will prevent this illegal rule from taking effect," Paxton stated, highlighting the ongoing debate over federal versus state control of gun regulations. The plaintiffs in the case argued that the rule violated the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which delineates categories of gun sellers, and infringed upon the Second Amendment. While Judge Kacsmaryk did not address the constitutional claims, he concurred that the rule breached the law. He noted that the rule could unjustly affect those who buy and sell firearms for their personal collections, suggesting that the language meant to protect such gun owners was inadequate. "The absurdity that the statute’s safe harbor provision provides no safe harbor at all for the majority of gun owners," Kacsmaryk wrote, critiquing the legislation's effectiveness in safeguarding individual gun owners. The judge’s order also extends to various gun rights organizations, including the Gun Owners of America, which boasts more than a million members nationwide. This ruling represents a significant victory for these groups, who have consistently opposed expanded background check measures. Additionally, this ruling is not the only legal challenge facing the background check rule. Two other lawsuits have been filed: one led by Arkansas and Kansas, joined by 19 other states, and another from Florida. These cases reflect widespread opposition among certain states and gun rights advocates to federal regulations perceived as overreach. Judge Kacsmaryk, appointed by former President Donald Trump, has presided over several politically contentious cases as part of his single-judge division in Amarillo, Texas. His rulings have often sparked controversy, particularly among Democrats who have accused conservatives of "judge shopping"—filing cases in specific courts to secure favorable judges like Kacsmaryk. This decision marks a critical juncture in the ongoing battle over gun control in the United States. The Biden administration's efforts to tighten firearm regulations are likely to face continued resistance in the courts, particularly in states with strong pro-gun constituencies. Credit: The Hill 2024-05-25 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a significant step forward for Ukraine's defense capabilities, the first batch of Ukrainian pilots has successfully completed the F-16 training program in Arizona. Erin Hannigan, a spokesperson for the U.S. Air National Guard, confirmed this milestone in a statement to Politico on May 23. This development marks a crucial moment in the ongoing international support for Ukraine amid its conflict with Russia. Ukraine is set to receive dozens of American-made fourth-generation fighter jets from several European countries, including the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, and Norway. This transfer is part of a broader effort by the international community to bolster Ukraine's aerial combat capabilities. The U.S., alongside these nations, has committed to providing the necessary training to Ukrainian pilots through a collaborative framework known as the fighter jet coalition. The specifics of the number of graduates and the exact date of their graduation were withheld by Hannigan, citing safety concerns. The pilots will continue their training in Europe, as detailed by an anonymous source cited by Politico. The initial training for these pilots began last October at Morris Air National Guard Base in Tucson, Arizona, under the guidance of the Air National Guard's 162nd Wing. The comprehensive program is designed to equip Ukrainian aviators with the skills needed to operate and maintain the F-16 aircraft effectively. In addition to the training in the U.S., other Ukrainian pilots are undergoing similar programs in Denmark. Romania has also established an F-16 training facility to contribute to this international effort. Complementing the pilots' training, the Dutch Defense Ministry recently announced that the first group of ten Ukrainian military personnel has completed F-16 maintenance training in the Netherlands. This initiative ensures that Ukraine will not only have trained pilots but also the technical expertise necessary to maintain and support their new fleet of fighter jets. The integration of F-16 fighter jets into Ukraine's military arsenal represents a substantial enhancement of its defense capabilities. The F-16 is known for its versatility, advanced avionics, and combat effectiveness. With these aircraft, Ukraine will be better equipped to defend its airspace and conduct various military operations. The successful completion of the initial F-16 training by Ukrainian pilots underscores the ongoing international collaboration aimed at supporting Ukraine. This training, alongside the provision of advanced aircraft and maintenance skills, highlights the commitment of the U.S. and European nations to Ukraine's sovereignty and defense. As the Ukrainian pilots continue their advanced training in Europe, the international community remains vigilant in its support. This collective effort is not only a testament to the solidarity with Ukraine but also a strategic move to enhance the country's defense capabilities in the face of ongoing challenges. Credit: Yahoo News 2024-05-25 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

New topic on ICJ ruling here please continue there. The ICJ Ordered Israel to Halt its Rafah Military Offensive https://aseannow.com/topic/1328104-the-icj-ordered-israel-to-halt-its-rafah-military-offensive/ An unapproved social media link has additionally been removed

New topic please carry on here: The ICJ Ordered Israel to Halt its Rafah Military Offensive

“Israel must immediately halt its military offensive and any other action in Rafah which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part," said Judge Nawaf Salam, president of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The court, which sits in The Hague, the Netherlands, made the ruling on Friday as part of the ongoing genocide case brought by South Africa. In its ruling, the court said that the humanitarian situation in Gaza had deteriorated "even further" since the court last ordered provisional measures in March. "The humanitarian situation is now to be characterized as disastrous," Salam said. The court noted that around 800,000 Palestinians had been displaced from Rafah as of May 18, after Israel began its military offensive on May 7. Israel had warned civilians in parts of the city to evacuate ahead of its operation, but the court said these efforts were not "sufficient to alleviate the immense risk to which the Palestinian population is exposed as a result" of Israel's incursion. CONCLUSION AND MEASURES TO BE ADOPTED (PARAS. 48-55) The Court concludes, on the basis of the above considerations, that the circumstances of the case require it to modify its decision set out in its Order of 28 March 2024. The Court considers that, in conformity with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, Israel must immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. The Court recalls that, in its Order of 26 January 2024, it ordered Israel, inter alia, to “take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II and Article III of [the Genocide Convention]”. In the present circumstances, the Court is also of the view that, in order to preserve evidence related to allegations of acts falling within the scope of Article II and Article III of the Genocide Convention, Israel must take effective measures to ensure the unimpeded access to the Gaza Strip of any commission of inquiry, fact-finding mission or other investigative body mandated by competent organs of the United Nations to investigate allegations of genocide. The Court also considers that the catastrophic situation in Gaza confirms the need for the immediate and effective implementation of the measures indicated in its Orders of 26 January 2024 and 28 March 2024, which are applicable throughout the Gaza Strip, including in Rafah. In these circumstances, the Court finds it necessary to reaffirm the measures indicated in those Orders. In so doing, the Court wishes to emphasize that the measure indicated in paragraph 51 (2) (a) of its Order of 28 March 2024, requiring the “unhindered provision at scale by all concerned of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance”, necessitates that the Respondent maintain open land crossing points, and in particular the Rafah crossing. In view of the specific provisional measures it has decided to indicate, the Court considers that Israel must submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this Order, within one month as from the date of this Order. The report so provided will then be communicated to South Africa, which shall be given the opportunity to submit to the Court its comments thereon. The Court underlines that the present Order is without prejudice to any findings concerning the Respondent’s compliance with the Orders of 26 January 2024 and 28 March 2024. In its Orders of 26 January 2024 and 28 March 2024, the Court expressed its grave concern over the fate of the hostages abducted during the attack in Israel on 7 October 2023 and held since then by Hamas and other armed groups, and called for their immediate and unconditional release. The Court finds it deeply troubling that many of these hostages remain in captivity and reiterates its call for their immediate and unconditional release. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-sum-01-00-en.pdf Credit: Reuters | CNN | ICJ 2024-05-24 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In further horrific revelations that underscores the brutal nature of the October 7 Hamas invasion, a father and son duo, Jamal Hussein Ahmad Radi, 47, and Abdallah Radi, 18, have confessed to a series of heinous crimes including rape and murder. Captured by Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in Gaza, their confessions have been documented in video footage obtained by MailOnline, providing a grim insight into the atrocities committed against innocent civilians. On October 7, during a violent invasion, Jamal and Abdallah Radi, along with other Hamas militants, infiltrated the Nir Oz kibbutz near the Gaza border. The IDF captured the pair during ongoing operations in Gaza and subjected them to interrogation by the Shin Bet security service. In the footage, both men, dressed in grey tracksuits and handcuffed, are seen confessing to their crimes while sitting in front of an Israeli flag at a secret location. Jamal Radi, a father of seven and a member of the Hamas Security Service, described the invasion with chilling detachment. "In each house where we found someone, we either killed them or kidnapped them," he admitted. Recounting one specific instance, he said, "In the first house I found a woman and her husband, and we hit them with fire and killed them…they were in their late 40s." Jamal's confession continued with graphic detail about the sexual violence he perpetrated. "I raped one woman. She was screaming, she was crying," he said. He threatened her with a gun to undress and mentioned she wore jean shorts. "I don't know what happened to her, I was there for fifteen minutes and then I left," he added. Abdallah Radi, his 18-year-old son, corroborated and expanded on his father's horrific actions. "My father raped her, then I did, then my cousin did, and then my father killed the woman after we finished raping her," he said. Abdallah further confessed to killing two people, raping two, and breaking into five houses. These confessions have come to light two months after a report by Pramila Patten, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict. Patten's investigation into the events of October 7 documented "unspeakable violence perpetrated with shocking brutality." During her month-long visit, she interviewed 34 survivors and examined morgues holding the victims' bodies. "It was a catalogue of the most extreme and inhumane forms of killing, torture, and other horrors," she reported. The invasion also targeted attendees of the Nova music festival, who suffered conflict-related sexual violence. Horrific footage has surfaced showing five women captured by Hamas, threatened at gunpoint, further highlighting the terror and violence of that day. An IDF spokesperson, in response to the confessions, emphasized the severity of the documented violence. "Over the past months, we've seen countless evidence of the brutal violence used by Hamas on October 7th, including harrowing acts of gender-based and sexual violence," the spokesperson said. These confessions, they noted, validate the testimonies of witnesses, survivors, and freed hostages, countering any attempts to deny the horrors of October 7 or discredit the experiences of the victims. Currently, both Jamal and Abdallah Radi are in custody, awaiting trial for their crimes. Their confessions not only shed light on the specific events of October 7 but also serve as a stark reminder of the brutality faced by the victims. The revelations have intensified the global condemnation of the acts committed by Hamas militants, reinforcing the call for justice and accountability in the wake of such atrocities. Credit: Daily Mail 2024-05-24 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is set to run as an independent candidate in the upcoming general election, challenging his old party in the Islington North seat he has held for over 40 years. This decision, reported by The Daily Telegraph, marks a significant moment in British politics as Corbyn continues to navigate his political career following his suspension from the Labour parliamentary party. Jeremy Corbyn was suspended from the Labour parliamentary party in 2020 after a contentious row over his handling of antisemitism allegations within the party. Corbyn's refusal to apologize for his response to the antisemitism crisis led to his suspension, a move he described as "political." He claimed that the scale of antisemitism within Labour had been “dramatically overstated” by the party’s opponents. Despite his suspension, Corbyn maintained his commitment to his constituents, stating he had “no intention of stopping” his work in Islington North. Since then, he has continued to serve as an independent MP, emphasizing his dedication to the community he has represented since 1983. Corbyn's decision to stand as an independent candidate poses a significant challenge to Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer. Starmer has explicitly banned Corbyn from running as a Labour candidate, primarily due to Corbyn's handling of the antisemitism issue. This move forces Labour to select a new candidate for Islington North, a seat that has historically been one of the party’s safest, with Corbyn securing a substantial majority of 26,188 votes in the 2019 general election. Labour's candidate selection process is ongoing, with Sem Moema, a member of the London Assembly, and Praful Nargund, an Islington councillor, emerging as frontrunners. Former BBC journalist Paul Mason was also in the running but did not make the final shortlist. The selected Labour candidate is expected to be announced on June 1. Corbyn's independent run is likely to cause significant headaches for Labour. His long-standing popularity in Islington North and the sizable majority he previously secured suggest he could retain substantial support, potentially splitting the vote and complicating Labour's campaign efforts. Moreover, Corbyn’s move has sparked broader discussions within Labour about the party’s direction and inclusivity. Allies of Corbyn, such as Baroness Shami Chakrabarti, have urged Starmer to reconsider the party’s stance on other suspended members, notably Diane Abbott. Abbott was suspended in April after making comments perceived to diminish the severity of racism against Jewish people. Despite apologizing, she remains suspended from the parliamentary Labour Party. Chakrabarti highlighted the party's tradition as a “broad church,” arguing for a more inclusive approach. "If there is now a place for a changed Natalie Elphicke in the Parliamentary Labour Party, surely my friend Diane Abbott will have the whip restored quick smart," she stated. This comparison underscores the tensions within Labour regarding its internal policies and the treatment of long-serving members. The upcoming general election, set for July 4, is already shaping up to be highly contentious. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has positioned the election as a crucial choice between his leadership and that of Starmer. In his announcement, Sunak defended his government's record on the economy, national security, and immigration, framing these issues as the key battlegrounds for the election. Starmer, in contrast, has promised to end what he describes as Tory “chaos” and restore economic “stability.” The presence of Corbyn as an independent candidate adds another layer of complexity to an already polarized political environment, potentially influencing voter dynamics not just in Islington North but across the broader electorate. As the general election approaches, Corbyn's candidacy is set to be a pivotal factor in one of the safest Labour seats, presenting both a challenge and an opportunity for the party. The outcome of this contest will have significant implications for Labour's future direction and the broader political landscape in the UK. Credit: BBC 2024-05-24 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley has declared her intention to vote for Donald Trump in the upcoming November election. This announcement marks her first public statement since exiting the Republican presidential primary over two months ago. Haley, who served as the US ambassador to the United Nations under Trump, acknowledged that while Trump “has not been perfect” on several policies important to her, including foreign policy, immigration, and the economy, she believes President Joe Biden “has been a catastrophe.” She stated unequivocally, “So I will be voting for Trump.” During a Q&A session following her speech at the conservative Hudson Institute in Washington, DC, where she currently holds the position of Walter P. Stern chair, Haley expressed no regrets about her primary bid. “We left it all on the field,” she said, thanking the primary voters who have continued to support her even after her departure from the race. She emphasized the importance for Trump to engage with these voters, stating, “Trump would be smart to reach out to the millions of people who voted for me and continue to support me, and not assume that they’re just going to be with him. And I genuinely hope he does that.” Haley and Trump were previously engaged in a contentious primary feud. Haley had criticized Trump’s mental fitness and his disrespect towards the military, particularly after Trump mocked the absence of her deployed husband. Despite these sharp exchanges, Haley’s endorsement suggests a pragmatic decision in the face of a general election. In her Hudson Institute speech, Haley did not initially mention Trump but addressed him when questioned afterwards. She highlighted a rising “dangerous worldview” on both sides of the aisle, emphasizing the need to take such threats seriously. Haley offered robust support for Israel’s war with Hamas and criticized President Biden for placing conditions on military aid to Israel. “Biden thinks he’s stopping a war,” she said. “In fact, he’s dragging out a war, emboldening terrorists, and making other wars more likely.” She also urged her fellow Republicans to support military aid for Ukraine and Israel, framing it as an investment in global stability. Since leaving the race, Haley has spent time with her family, including her husband Michael, who recently returned from a year-long overseas deployment. Despite her withdrawal, Haley has continued to garner significant support in Republican primaries, highlighting a potential challenge for Trump to unify the party. Her strong performance in suburban areas of swing states indicates her continued influence. Haley’s next steps remain uncertain. While she has not expressed interest in joining Trump’s ticket, some, like Republican Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina, believe she would be an excellent vice-presidential candidate. Norman noted Haley’s impressive primary performance and has pitched her potential candidacy to both Trump and Haley. Trump has publicly stated that Haley “is not under consideration” for a running mate but wished her well. Haley has kept her distance, neither hostile nor seeking Trump’s approval. They have not spoken since her concession speech in March. Credit: CNN 2024-05-24 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Former President Donald Trump recently claimed that the Biden administration authorized the use of "deadly force" against him during the FBI's search of his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, nearly two years ago. This assertion, made in a post on Trump's social media platform Truth Social, has been widely shared and amplified by his supporters. However, a closer examination of the facts reveals that Trump's claim is a significant distortion of standard FBI protocol. The Claim and Its Context. Trump's post on Truth Social stated: This dramatic statement suggested that the FBI, under the direction of the Biden administration, had been prepared to use lethal force against Trump during the August 2022 search. The claim was further echoed by figures such as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Senate candidate Kari Lake, who insinuated that the administration had sinister intentions. The Facts The reality, however, is far less sensational. The language Trump referred to in the FBI's operations order is a standard policy statement included in all search warrants to outline the circumstances under which deadly force may be used. This policy is not specific to Trump or the Mar-a-Lago search. According to the FBI's statement: The policy stipulates that deadly force can only be used when an officer reasonably believes that the subject poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to themselves or others. This is a common precautionary measure included in such operations to ensure clarity on the use of force. Trump's interpretation of this standard procedure as a direct threat to his life is not supported by any evidence. The operations order merely reiterated the FBI's established guidelines on the use of force, applicable in all search warrant scenarios. Frank Figliuzzi, a former assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, clarified on social media: “Yep, every FBI operations order contains a reminder of FBI deadly force policy. Even for a search warrant. Deadly force is always authorized if the required threat presents itself.” Moreover, Trump was not at Mar-a-Lago during the search; the estate was closed for the season, and the FBI coordinated with the Secret Service to ensure the operation proceeded without incident. Trump's mischaracterization of the FBI's standard procedures as a personal assassination attempt by the Biden administration serves to inflame partisan tensions and distrust in federal institutions. Such claims can erode public confidence in law enforcement and the judicial process, contributing to a more polarized and unstable political climate. This tactic of amplifying false narratives has become a hallmark of Trump’s strategy, particularly in his ongoing legal battles. By framing himself as a victim of political persecution, Trump seeks to rally his base and discredit his opponents, even at the cost of spreading misinformation. Credit: ABC News 2024-05-24 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Russia's recent proposal to unilaterally redraw its maritime borders in the Baltic Sea has sparked a wave of condemnation from NATO members Lithuania and Finland. This move, perceived as a provocative act against NATO and the EU, has heightened tensions in the already volatile region. Late on Tuesday, the Russian defense ministry published a plan suggesting an expansion of Russia's maritime boundaries with Lithuania and Finland, both NATO members. This proposal, which appeared on a government website, was removed less than 24 hours later. Despite its brief appearance, the plan elicited strong reactions from the international community. Gabrielius Landsbergis, Lithuania’s foreign minister, described the proposal as "another Russian hybrid operation" aimed at spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Russia’s intentions in the Baltic Sea. He emphasized the need for a firm response from NATO and the EU, calling the proposal an obvious escalation. In response, Lithuania's foreign ministry summoned a Russian diplomatic representative to provide a detailed explanation and pledged to coordinate its response with NATO allies. This move underscores the seriousness with which Lithuania is treating the potential threat. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov attempted to downplay the situation, asserting that there was "nothing political" about the defense ministry's proposal. However, he did not delve into the specifics of the plan. Peskov acknowledged the escalating tensions and the increased level of confrontation in the Baltic region, suggesting that Russia's relevant agencies were taking necessary steps to ensure national security. Finnish President Alexander Stubb maintained a calm and factual approach, stating that Russia had not contacted Finland regarding the proposed border changes. Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen echoed this sentiment, emphasizing that Finland would not be swayed by attempts to sow confusion, a tactic often associated with hybrid warfare. This development is seen as Russia's latest attempt to unsettle its neighbors following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. NATO countries, including Lithuania and Finland, have been on high alert for various forms of hybrid attacks from Russia, such as cyber attacks, forced migration, and acts of sabotage. The Russian defense ministry justified the proposed border changes by claiming that the current borders in the Gulf of Finland and the Baltic Sea near Kaliningrad do not "fully correspond to the current geographical situation." Lithuania's foreign ministry condemned the proposal as a "deliberate, targeted, escalating provocation" aimed at intimidating neighboring countries and their societies. This view is widely shared among Baltic countries and other European powers, including the UK, Germany, and France, who have all warned of the potential for Russia to launch an attack on a NATO member within the next few years. While acknowledging the heightened risk, Finnish President Stubb told the Financial Times that such an attack remains "highly unlikely," although NATO and Finland should still prepare for any possibility. This cautious optimism reflects a broader strategy within NATO to deter aggression while avoiding unnecessary escalation. Russia's proposal to unilaterally expand its maritime borders in the Baltic Sea represents a significant escalation in its ongoing strategy to destabilize the region and challenge NATO. The swift and strong condemnation from Lithuania, Finland, and other NATO members underscores the gravity of the situation. As NATO continues to monitor and respond to these provocations, the alliance's unity and preparedness will be crucial in maintaining regional stability and deterring further aggression from Russia. Credit: The Times 2024-05-24 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

GB News has quickly become a prominent player in the UK media landscape, experiencing rapid audience growth and offering an alternative voice to the traditional broadcasters like the BBC. This emergence has sparked significant backlash from established media figures, most notably Andrew Neil, a seasoned journalist who played a key role in the channel's inception. Andrew Neil, who was instrumental in launching GB News, recently appeared on the BBC's "Today" program, where he criticized the channel he helped create. In a revealing interview, Neil's disdain for GB News was palpable as he dismissed its growing influence and audience reach. The casual and friendly atmosphere of the BBC studio, where the hosts referred to him by his first name, highlighted the cozy relationship between the traditional media and its stalwarts. Neil's main contention was not with GB News' growing viewership but with its programming style, particularly the involvement of serving Tory MPs as hosts. He argued that this practice broke with British broadcasting traditions of maintaining "impartiality." However, the notion of media impartiality is often seen as a façade, with many accusing the BBC and other mainstream media of having their own biases and preferences. Despite the criticism, GB News has been thriving. According to the UK Press Gazette, the channel saw a 167% increase in its audience compared to February 2023, with 9 million people tuning in. This remarkable growth indicates a significant shift in the media consumption habits of the British public, suggesting a demand for alternative viewpoints and a break from the traditional media narratives. GB News has positioned itself as a disruptor in the UK media scene, attracting viewers with its unorthodox approach. Shows fronted by politically engaged figures like Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Farage have resonated with a segment of the audience that feels underserved by other broadcasters. Rees-Mogg, in particular, has been praised for his intelligent and historically informed approach to political interrogation. The recent investigation by Ofcom, the UK's media regulator, into a GB News program where Prime Minister Rishi Sunak took unchallenged questions from the public has raised the stakes. Ofcom stated that this represented a "serious and repeated breach" of broadcasting rules, prompting considerations of a statutory sanction. While the potential outcomes range from fines to more severe measures, such as revoking the channel's broadcasting license, it is unlikely that Ofcom would take such drastic steps, especially with an upcoming general election. Shutting down GB News over regulatory breaches would not only look bad for Ofcom but also for British democracy, potentially stifling free speech and media diversity. The channel's experiment with politically charged and engaging content has been a breath of fresh air for many viewers, contrasting sharply with what some perceive as the blandness and consensus-driven nature of other news outlets. The concept of media impartiality is at the heart of the debate surrounding GB News. Critics argue that the traditional media, including the BBC, often claim impartiality while harboring their own biases. GB News has challenged this by openly presenting viewpoints that question mainstream orthodoxies, such as the UK's Net Zero policies and climate change debates. While some see this as a necessary challenge to the status quo, others, like Andrew Neil, view it as a deviation from journalistic standards. Neil's critique, however, seems tinged with personal animosity, possibly stemming from his tumultuous departure from the channel. His preference for models like Sky News, which he helped establish, reflects his comfort with traditional media structures that GB News disrupts. GB News is not without its flaws. Critics point to its occasionally "shouty" and sometimes ignorant coverage. However, its role in diversifying the media landscape and fostering robust debate on contentious issues is undeniable. As GB News continues to grow and challenge the old media consensus, it remains to be seen how regulators like Ofcom will navigate the delicate balance between enforcing standards and preserving media plurality. For those who value free speech and a diversity of viewpoints, the hope is that GB News will be allowed to thrive and evolve. Its success signifies a broader shift in media consumption, where audiences seek more than just the polished, often sanitized narratives provided by traditional broadcasters. In this evolving media environment, GB News' role as a disruptor is both necessary and indicative of a changing public appetite for news and commentary. Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-05-24 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

China has initiated two days of military exercises around Taiwan, framing these actions as a "strong punishment" for what it terms the island's "separatist acts." These drills come just three days after the inauguration of Taiwanese President William Lai, who urged China to cease its threats and recognize Taiwan's democracy. This recent escalation underscores the persistent and intensifying tensions between China and Taiwan, reflecting Beijing's unwavering stance that Taiwan is a breakaway province destined to return under its control—a view starkly opposed by Taiwan, which sees itself as a sovereign entity. Taiwan's defense ministry has condemned the exercises as "irrational provocations" and dispatched naval, air, and ground forces to defend the island's sovereignty. Notably, these drills are unprecedented in scope. For the first time, they simulated a full-scale attack rather than an economic blockade, targeting the main island of Taiwan as well as the Taipei-controlled Kinmen, Matsu, Wuqiu, and Dongyin islands close to the Chinese coast. The drills extended to Taiwan’s eastern coast, a significant military redoubt with substantial hardened infrastructure, including a large underground airbase near Hualien. This move is strategic, showing Beijing's capability to threaten not just Taiwan’s western approaches but also its eastern defenses, which are crucial for any resupply or reinforcement from allies like the United States. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) emphasized that the drills focused on joint sea-air combat readiness, precision strikes on key targets, and integrated operations. These exercises are seen as a test of the PLA's "joint real combat capabilities." According to Taiwanese military experts, this suggests that China is preparing for a potential full-scale armed invasion. In response, Taiwan has decried these actions as exacerbating global instability. President William Lai and Taiwan’s defense ministry have both highlighted the threats posed by continuous Chinese military harassment, which they argue undermines regional peace and stability. Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council reiterated its commitment to maintaining peace across the Taiwan Strait, despite Beijing’s aggressive posturing. China's maneuvers around Taiwan are not new. They mirror previous encirclement exercises, such as those following then-US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan in August 2022. These earlier drills simulated a blockade of Taiwan, involving ships, aircraft, and missile strikes, and set a precedent for the current exercises. Beijing’s rhetoric has become increasingly assertive under President Xi Jinping, who has consistently stressed the inevitability of "reunification" with Taiwan. This stance was underscored just weeks before Taiwan’s recent election, reflecting a hardening of China’s position. The international community, particularly NATO members and the United States, watches these developments with concern. The drills signal Beijing’s willingness to escalate military pressure on Taiwan, challenging any potential foreign intervention. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin justified the exercises as necessary to safeguard national sovereignty, dismissing Taiwan independence as "doomed to fail." Taiwanese officials have condemned China’s actions, labeling them as attempts to intimidate and destabilize the region. They argue that Beijing’s militaristic mentality is incompatible with the principles of democracy and freedom. Despite the provocative nature of the drills, Taiwan’s government remains steadfast in its commitment to peace and stability, emphasizing that aggressive tactics will not win over the Taiwanese populace. The ongoing tensions between China and Taiwan highlight the broader geopolitical struggle in the region. While China and Taiwan maintain some economic ties, formal communication channels are virtually nonexistent, and most of the international community recognizes Beijing over Taipei. The United States, despite lacking official diplomatic ties with Taiwan, remains a crucial supporter, bound by law to provide Taiwan with defensive means. Analysts suggest that China’s current strategy involves a form of grey zone warfare, aimed at gradually weakening Taiwan’s resolve and international support without crossing into full-scale conflict. This approach seeks to apply sustained pressure on Taiwan, potentially leading to significant geopolitical shifts in the future. Credit: BBC 2024-05-24 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In the aftermath of seven brutal months of war with Hamas, Israel faces a critical juncture in deciding who will govern the Gaza Strip. The options are few and fraught with complexity, and none appear to offer an easy solution. Despite significant military efforts, Hamas remains a resilient adversary, regrouping in some of the hardest-hit areas and resuming rocket attacks into nearby Israeli communities. As Israel contemplates its next steps, the choices range from full-scale occupation to seeking international cooperation, each with its own set of challenges and consequences. Israel initially made significant advances against Hamas following powerful aerial strikes that paved the way for ground troops. However, these early victories have turned into a grinding struggle against an adaptable insurgency. This situation has evoked comparisons with the prolonged conflicts the United States faced in Iraq and Afghanistan, leading to a growing sentiment among Israelis that the military is confronted with only bad options. This sentiment was highlighted by recent dissent within Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s three-man war cabinet. Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and political rival Benny Gantz have demanded detailed postwar plans from Netanyahu. Their concerns reflect the broader apprehension about the absence of a clear strategy for Gaza's future. The conflict, which began after Hamas's October 7 cross-border attack that killed 1,200 people and led to 252 abductions to Gaza, has been marked by one of the heaviest bombing campaigns in recent history. Ground operations have claimed the lives of 286 Israeli soldiers. The fighting has caused widespread devastation, disrupted humanitarian aid, and, according to the UN’s World Food Program, pushed parts of Gaza into famine. Gallant and Gantz, both retired generals, fear the repercussions of a prolonged, costly reoccupation of Gaza, from which Israel withdrew all its soldiers and settlers in 2005. Their opposition to a full-scale reoccupation is shared by many Israelis, who point to the immense costs and responsibilities of such an undertaking. As an occupying power, Israel would be expected to provide health, education, and other services to Gaza's 2.3 million residents. Additionally, there is no guarantee that an occupation would succeed in eliminating Hamas. Full-Scale Military Occupation: A Questionable Path Netanyahu has promised a "total victory" that would remove Hamas from power, dismantle its military capabilities, and return the hostages. He has suggested that victory could come within weeks if Israel launches a full-scale invasion of Rafah, which is considered the last Hamas stronghold. Retired General Amir Avivi supports this view, stating that Israel would need to remain in control to prevent Hamas from regrouping. "If you don’t drain the swamp, you cannot deal with the mosquitoes. And drain the swamp means a complete change in the education system, and dealing with local leadership and not with a terror organization," Avivi said. "This is a generational process. It’s not going to happen in a day." However, most Israelis oppose a permanent occupation, citing the immense costs and responsibilities. Far-right members of Netanyahu’s governing coalition have called for "voluntary emigration" of large numbers of Palestinians and the rebuilding of Jewish settlements in Gaza. But such measures are likely to face significant opposition both domestically and internationally. A Lighter Occupation with Local Administration: An Elusive Solution Netanyahu has also proposed maintaining security control over Gaza while delegating civilian administration to local Palestinians unaffiliated with Hamas or the Western-backed Palestinian Authority (PA). He has suggested that Arab and other countries assist with governance and rebuilding. However, finding local collaborators has proven difficult, as Hamas has threatened to treat them as collaborators, which is a veiled death threat. Efforts to engage Palestinian businessmen and powerful families have been unsuccessful. Michael Milshtein, an Israeli analyst of Palestinian affairs at Tel Aviv University and a former military intelligence officer, described this approach as searching for "unicorns" — something that does not exist. Arab states have also roundly rejected involvement in this scenario. Even the United Arab Emirates, which formally recognizes Israel and has close ties with it, has declined to participate. "The UAE refuses to be involved in any plan aimed at providing cover for the Israeli presence in the Gaza Strip," said UAE Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan. A Grand Bargain with International Involvement: A Difficult Path A more ambitious proposal backed by some Arab states involves a comprehensive peace plan aimed at resolving the long-standing conflict and transforming the Middle East. This plan envisions a reformed PA governing Gaza with the assistance of Arab and Muslim nations, including Saudi Arabia. In return, Saudi Arabia would normalize relations with Israel, and the U.S. would provide a defense pact and support for building a civilian nuclear program. However, this plan hinges on Israel committing to a credible path to Palestinian statehood, something Netanyahu, Gallant, and Gantz have ruled out. They argue that it would reward Hamas and result in a terrorist-run state on Israel’s borders. Palestinians, on the other hand, insist that ending Israel’s control and creating a fully independent state in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem is the only way to end the cycle of violence. A Deal with Hamas: A Controversial Proposal Hamas has proposed a phased agreement that would involve releasing all hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, a lengthy ceasefire, and reconstruction efforts. While this proposal might provide immediate relief and return the hostages, it would likely leave Hamas in control of Gaza and allow it to rebuild its military capabilities. Such a deal could also threaten Netanyahu’s political position by potentially collapsing his coalition. Supporters of this approach argue that it could offer significant benefits, including easing regional tensions and allowing for a reassessment of the security failures that led to the October 7 attack. Milshtein suggests that Israel could adopt Hamas’s concept of a "hudna," a prolonged period of strategic calm that would allow both sides to strengthen their positions before any future conflicts. "Hudna doesn’t mean a peace agreement," Milshtein said. "It’s a ceasefire that you will exploit in order to make yourself stronger and then to attack and surprise your enemy." Israel's options for postwar Gaza are complex and fraught with uncertainty. A full-scale military occupation poses immense costs and responsibilities, while a lighter occupation or grand bargain requires significant international cooperation and local support that are currently lacking. A deal with Hamas, though potentially providing immediate relief, could ultimately empower the group and fail to provide a lasting solution. As Israel navigates these difficult choices, it must balance immediate security needs with long-term implications for peace and stability in the region. Credit: Times of Israel 2024-05-24 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

A number of posts contravening the forums community standards have been removed. Videos and conspiracy theories have been dealt with. Please stay on topic which happens to be: New Very Disturbing Video Released of 5 Female Hostages being abducted by Hamas on Oct 7th

In a stark and heart-wrenching revelation, the Hostages and Missing Families Forum has released a disturbing video showing the abduction of five female soldiers by Hamas terrorists on October 7, 2023. The footage, captured by body cameras worn by the terrorists, offers a grim glimpse into the terror and brutality faced by the soldiers during the attack on the Nahal Oz base near the Gaza border. This video serves as a powerful indictment of Hamas's cruelty and a desperate plea for action to secure the release of the hostages who have now been in captivity for 229 days. The video, lasting three minutes and ten seconds, begins inside a shelter on the Nahal Oz base around 9 a.m. It shows the soldiers—Liri Albag, Karina Ariev, Agam Berger, Daniella Gilboa, and Naama Levy—shocked, horrified, and visibly wounded as they are tied up by the terrorists. The soldiers' hands are bound, and they are verbally abused by their captors. One terrorist yells, “You dogs — we will step on you!” This is just the beginning of the torment these young women endure. Liri Albag's father, Eli, expressed the families' desperation in a Channel 12 studio after the footage was screened. He implored the media to broadcast this footage daily until the nation and its leadership wake up to the urgency of the situation. “I want you to broadcast this footage every day at the start of the news,” he pleaded. “Until somebody wakes up.” As the video unfolds, it becomes evident that the terrorists are in no hurry to leave the base. Instead, they spend a significant amount of time tormenting the soldiers, slowly moving them to their vehicles while gunfire can be heard in the background. This lack of urgency raises critical questions about the absence of Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) intervention during the three hours that the terrorists occupied the base. Media commentators and family members alike have expressed bewilderment and outrage at the apparent failure of the IDF to rescue the hostages during this time. President Isaac Herzog and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have both condemned the footage and reiterated their commitment to bringing the hostages home. Herzog called the video a "cruel atrocity" and urged the world to take a stand for women's rights and freedom. Netanyahu, expressing his horror, vowed to fight with all his might to ensure such atrocities do not happen again, stating, “The cruelty of the Hamas terrorists only strengthens my determination to fight with all my might until Hamas is eliminated in order to ensure that what we saw this evening doesn’t happen ever again.” The families of the abducted soldiers decided to release the heavily censored footage, originally over 13 minutes long, to awaken the nation and its leadership to the gravity of the situation. Eli Albag explained, “This is the most sensitive version… and still terribly harsh. We are exposing ourselves and our daughters. We went back and forth over and over about whether to release it. Three of the mothers have not seen the footage, are not prepared to see the footage, cannot bear to see the girls [in the footage].” The Hostages and Missing Families Forum issued a statement emphasizing the dire reality faced by the hostages. “The disturbing video has been the reality of Agam, Daniella, Liri, Naama, Karina, and 123 other hostages for 229 days,” the statement read. “The Israeli government must not waste even one more moment – it must return to the negotiating table today!” The footage reveals a chilling scene where the terrorists, after binding and abusing the soldiers, mockingly describe them as "women who can get pregnant" and make lewd comments about their appearance. One terrorist yells, “Our brothers died because of you. We will shoot you all,” further highlighting the brutality and dehumanization perpetrated by Hamas. The video also shows the terrorists praying while still in the shelter, a grim juxtaposition of their acts of terror with religious observance. This scene underscores the perverse ideology driving Hamas, which uses religion as a veneer to justify its heinous acts. Ayelet Shahar Levy, mother of Naama Levy, poignantly described the footage as showing their daughters in their "worst hour." She expressed hope that the soldiers remain brave and courageous despite the unimaginable horrors they face in captivity. The release of this video, she explained, was intended to prompt decision-makers, including ministers and the war cabinet, to prioritize the hostages' release. War cabinet minister Benny Gantz, after viewing the footage, expressed profound distress and reiterated the responsibility of leaders to create a different reality, even when faced with difficult decisions. Yisrael Beytenu MK Oded Forer called for international women's rights groups to take a stand, emphasizing that the most crucial goal of the ongoing war is to bring the hostages home. The release of the footage comes amid stalled negotiations on a truce deal with Hamas, which have been frozen since April. The only previous deal, in November, saw 105 hostages released during a week-long truce. Currently, 124 hostages remain in Gaza, with the IDF confirming the deaths of 37 hostages based on new intelligence. This tragic situation continues to unfold, with the fate of these individuals hanging in the balance. Eli Albag and other family members of the hostages have made a powerful and emotional appeal to the nation and its leaders. “What else can we say? Where else can we shout? What else can we do to wake the nation up?” Albag asked. His question resonates deeply, highlighting the frustration and despair felt by the families as they watch their loved ones endure prolonged captivity and suffering. The video stands as a damning testament to Hamas's inhumanity and the failure of efforts to secure the hostages' release. It calls for immediate and decisive action, reminding us of the immense human cost of inaction and the urgent need to prioritize the return of these innocent individuals. As the world watches, it becomes clear that bringing the hostages home is not just a matter of national security but a moral imperative that demands the collective resolve and compassion of humanity. Credit: Times of Israel | CBC News 2024-05-23 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a surprise announcement, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has called for an early general election to be held on Thursday, 4 July. The move comes as a bid to secure a fifth consecutive term for the Conservative Party, overturning previous expectations of an autumn poll. Sunak made the announcement during a rain-soaked speech outside 10 Downing Street, emphasizing his commitment to "fight for every vote." The decision to call an early election aims to capitalize on recent economic improvements, including a drop in annual inflation to its lowest rate in nearly three years and the UK’s emergence from recession earlier this year. "Today's inflation figures and our economic recovery are proof that the plan and priorities we set out are working," Sunak declared, despite being interrupted by activists playing the New Labour anthem "Things Can Only Get Better" over a loudspeaker. Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer responded quickly, stating it was "time for change" and criticizing the Conservative government for what he termed "Tory chaos" that has damaged the economy and public services. Starmer argued that a Labour government would bring political stability and better management of the NHS and crime. "Give the Tories five more years and things will only get worse. Britain deserves better than that," Starmer said in a televised statement. Other political leaders also reacted to the announcement: SNP leader John Swinney saw the election as a chance to "remove the Tory government and put Scotland first." Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey described it as an opportunity to "kick Rishi Sunak's appalling Conservative government out of office." Greens co-leader Carla Denyer expressed hopes to increase the number of Green MPs. Reform UK leader Richard Tice criticized both major parties, claiming the Tories had "broken Britain" and Labour would "bankrupt Britain," promoting his party’s "common sense policies." With Parliament set to be suspended on Friday and formally shut down next week, there are only two days left to pass any outstanding legislation. This tight timeline means that some government measures will have to be abandoned. The upcoming election will be fought on newly redrawn constituency boundaries, reflecting population changes since 2010, and will be the first to require voter ID. Sunak's decision has caused confusion within the Conservative Party. Some members expressed bewilderment at the timing, arguing that more time would have allowed the improving economy to bolster their position. "I just don't understand it," one Tory MP told the BBC. "The economy is improving. Why not give that more time to bed in?" A senior minister criticized Sunak for giving his speech in the rain, suggesting it undermined his image. "If the whole point was to remind the public that he was Mr. Furlough, why not do the speech inside from the same briefing room?" they questioned, noting that Labour MPs appeared happy with the decision, while Conservatives were not. This election will be the first held in July since 1945 and the first general election since 2015 not requiring a parliamentary vote to approve the date, following the reversal of legislation fixing the time between polls. The last election in 2019 saw Boris Johnson win an 80-seat majority, but his tenure was marked by volatility, including the Covid pandemic and a series of scandals leading to his resignation. His successor, Liz Truss, lasted only 49 days after a market backlash to her economic plans. Credit: BBC 2024-05-23 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Smartmatic, the voting machine firm, has accused Newsmax of destroying crucial evidence in a defamation lawsuit over false claims that the company helped rig the 2020 U.S. presidential election. This accusation adds a significant twist to the ongoing legal battles stemming from baseless allegations of election fraud propagated by former President Donald Trump and his allies. Smartmatic's lawsuit against Newsmax is part of a broader legal strategy that includes similar actions against Fox News, Rudy Giuliani, and other figures and organizations that promoted the false narrative of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election. The firm is seeking unspecified damages in a case being heard in Delaware Superior Court, the same venue where Fox News recently settled with Dominion Voting Systems for $787.5 million over similar claims. In court documents made public this week, Smartmatic's lawyers accuse Newsmax of engaging in a "cover-up" by destroying texts and emails from key executives. These communications, according to Smartmatic, would demonstrate that Newsmax knew the fraud claims were untrue yet continued to broadcast them for profit. The alleged destruction of evidence occurred after Newsmax had been notified to preserve documents pertinent to the lawsuit. Smartmatic's filing points to specific deleted messages, including texts from Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy regarding Trump’s attorney Sidney Powell, who was a frequent guest on Newsmax and a prominent source of the false fraud claims. Despite Ruddy's messages being deleted, other witnesses preserved similar communications, which have been provided to Smartmatic during the discovery process. J. Erik Connolly, an attorney for Smartmatic, issued a statement condemning Newsmax's actions: "Newsmax’s misconduct goes beyond falsely accusing Smartmatic of rigging the U.S. election; it also attempted to conceal evidence of its actions and failed to follow its own journalistic standards. Smartmatic’s motion details numerous instances of evidence destruction, including incriminating emails and texts from Newsmax executives, indicating intentional spoliation.” The filing also claims that Newsmax lied under oath about the existence of its journalistic guidelines, further undermining the network's credibility. This lawsuit is one among many that Smartmatic and Dominion Voting Systems have launched against news organizations that broadcast false election fraud claims. These cases ensure that the contentious and false narrative of the 2020 election being rigged will remain a focal point as the next presidential election approaches. Newsmax has denied Smartmatic's allegations, and the case is scheduled to go to trial in September. If Smartmatic prevails, the financial implications could be substantial, similar to the Fox News settlement with Dominion. Smartmatic is also pursuing a $2.7 billion defamation suit against Fox News, set to go to trial in early 2025. This follows Smartmatic’s settlement with another right-wing news channel, OANN, over similar false claims. Additionally, Dominion has pending lawsuits against OANN and Newsmax, and both companies have sued Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Lindell. These legal proceedings highlight the enduring impact of the false claims about the 2020 election and underscore the significant legal and financial risks faced by media organizations that propagate such misinformation. As these cases progress, they will likely shape the media landscape and influence the standards of journalistic integrity and accountability. Credit: NBC 2024-05-23 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The Duke of Sussex, Prince Harry, reportedly turned down an invitation from his father, King Charles III, to stay at a royal residence during his recent visit to London. The offer, which came without any security provision, was declined due to Harry's ongoing concerns about safety. This decision underscores the Duke's troubled relationship with the royal family's security arrangements and highlights the barriers to reconciliation between him and his father. Prince Harry, 39, was in London for three nights to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the Invictus Games, an event he founded to support wounded veterans. Despite being in the UK, Harry did not meet with King Charles III, 75. Although he made several requests for a meeting, upon his arrival in the UK, he issued a statement indicating that a meeting would not occur due to the King's busy schedule. King Charles offered Harry the opportunity to stay at an undisclosed royal residence, recognizing that his son no longer has an official UK home. However, Harry declined the invitation because it did not include security provisions. This meant that staying at the residence would have exposed him to public view without the necessary police protection, an unacceptable risk for the Duke. Consequently, Harry opted to stay at a hotel, where he could maintain a lower profile. The primary issue for Harry is the level of security provided outside royal residences. The Duke has been deeply affected by the withdrawal of his right to automatic police protection, a decision made by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) in February 2020. Ravec determined that Harry and his family were no longer entitled to the "same degree" of personal security during visits to the UK, opting instead for a "bespoke" arrangement evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Harry has challenged this decision legally, arguing that it subjected him to "unlawful and unfair treatment" and was imposed as a form of punishment. He offered to pay for his own security, but the Metropolitan Police Service refused, stating that their services were not for hire. In February, Harry lost his judicial review, with Mr. Justice Lane ruling that Ravec's decision was neither irrational nor procedurally unfair. Due to the lack of guaranteed security, Harry feels unable to bring his wife, Meghan Markle, and their children to the UK. His frustration is compounded by the involvement of senior royal household members in Ravec, leading him to believe that a resolution could be found if there were a genuine desire to assist him. Harry is required to provide at least 28 days' notice for visits to the UK, detailing his travel arrangements to allow for security assessments. Most of his requests have been denied, except for certain occasions related to royal events, such as the King's coronation. During a visit in February, Harry was provided a police escort from Heathrow Airport to Clarence House for a meeting with the King, who had recently been diagnosed with cancer. However, he did not receive protection when he left for his hotel. Prince Harry continues to seek what he views as fair treatment under Ravec's rules. He believes the bespoke process currently applied to him is inadequate compared to a full risk analysis, which he argues should have been conducted when he stepped back from royal duties in January 2020. Announcing his intention to appeal the judicial review ruling, his spokesman emphasized that Harry is not asking for preferential treatment but for a fair and lawful application of . This ongoing legal battle and the recent rejection of the King's invitation illustrate the significant hurdles in mending the strained relationship between Prince Harry and the royal family. The security concerns remain a critical issue, influencing his ability to visit the UK. Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-05-23 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe