Social Media

After nearly eight months of war, Gaza’s health system is in dire straits. According to a May 3 report from the World Health Organization (WHO), nearly 70% of Gaza’s hospitals are no longer operational. Additionally, the United Nations and the International Rescue Committee report that only 15 out of 36 hospitals are partially functioning, with 65% of primary health care centers completely out of action. Despite this widespread destruction, Hamas-employed health and information officials continue to provide daily updates on the rising death toll and countless injuries. These figures are often quoted by aid agencies, media outlets, and world leaders, including President Biden, without much scrutiny. However, the reliability of these numbers has come under question. A significant debate arose last week when the United Nations admitted that data from both the Hamas-run Ministry of Health and the Government Media Office in Gaza could not be independently verified. While the U.N. suggested that the overall death count was likely accurate, it halved the reported number of women and children killed, raising questions about the reliability of the information provided by Hamas, especially since they themselves mentioned that around 10,000 of those classified as dead were reported by "credible media source" however they refuse to state what media sources they are. Khaled Abu Toameh, a Palestinian affairs analyst based in Jerusalem, said, "It sounds credible when you say the Gaza Ministry of Health reported, but the truth is that most of the ministry employees are Hamas public servants, and they are not even working at the moment; they are on the run." He added, "No one really knows what is happening there. The Hamas government has not been functioning since the second or third week of the war…. They all went underground." Since Israeli troops entered Gaza on October 27, following an attack by Hamas, many affiliated with the terrorist organization have taken up arms, engaging in combat from within civilian population centers. At the beginning of the war, medical officials employed by Hamas monitored the rising death toll via a network of computers connecting morgues and hospitals. This system had been previously validated by human rights groups, the U.N., and the WHO. David Adesnik, a senior fellow and director of research at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, said, "At the start of the war, the health ministry had a stream of casualty data coming in from hospitals across Gaza. That is why so many Western journalists said the ministry's data was worth citing in their articles and why the U.N. trusted it." However, as Israeli troops advanced, the ministry lost contact with hospitals and began relying on "reliable media sources" to determine fatalities. These sources, which were never identified, became the primary basis for more than 75% of death records in the first three months of the year. Adesnik explained, "Even if you think the ministry was doing a good job at the beginning of the war collecting casualty data from hospitals, its shift to using ‘reliable media sources’ has seriously undermined its credibility." A May 3 WHO report highlighted that only a few of Gaza’s hospitals and primary health care facilities that were operational before October 7 are still functioning. Zaher al Wahaidi, who leads Hamas’ Health Information Centre, told Sky News last month that the morgue monitoring system only captures a fraction of the deaths. "Of the eight major hospitals responsible for collating morgue data, just three are still providing information to the health ministry," Sky News reported. An official from the Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), the Israeli military body that coordinates civilian issues in Palestinian territories, stated that the Hamas-run civilian offices were still operating to publish data and put pressure on the international community. "The numbers they publish are not right or accurate," the COGAT official said. Despite these issues, agencies like the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) continue to cite Hamas-published data in their daily reports, albeit with a disclaimer about their inability to independently verify the figures. The unreliability of data from Gaza has significant political implications. When asked whether President Biden had confidence in the casualty numbers from Gaza, National Security communications advisor John Kirby stated, "The President watches this very, very closely. Vedant Patel, principal deputy spokesperson at the State Department, emphasized the importance of protecting civilians but did not comment on whether the State Department or the White House would continue referring to Hamas’ data. Related Topics UN Cuts Death of Women and Children in Gaza by Half Hamas admits one-third of its data on Gazan deaths is ‘incomplete’ Scrutiny Over Gaza Death Toll Figures: UK Statistics Watchdog Investigates Hamas's Data How the Gaza Ministry of Health Fakes Casualty Numbers Credit: Yahoo News 2024-05-27 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently offered a candid reflection on her 2016 presidential campaign, attributing her loss in part to female voters who abandoned her in the campaign's final days. In an interview with The New Times, Clinton discussed the unique challenges she faced as a female candidate, suggesting that her gender played a significant role in her defeat. "They left me because they just couldn’t take a risk on me, because as a woman, I’m supposed to be perfect," Clinton stated. "They were willing to take a risk on [former President Trump] — who had a long list of, let’s call them flaws, to illustrate his imperfection — because he was a man, and they could envision a man as president and commander in chief." This sentiment was echoed by several of Clinton's allies during the 2016 election, who highlighted the sexist double standards she encountered. Tracy Sefl, a Democratic consultant and Clinton surrogate, remarked at the time, "Is there a double standard? One hundred percent times 100 percent. And God forbid if she coughs." Clinton's reflections come amid ongoing discussions about the barriers female politicians face. The challenges she described were not unique to her campaign. Former GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley, for instance, encountered sexist attacks during her own run before suspending her campaign in March. During a Republican primary debate last year in Miami, fellow candidate Vivek Ramaswamy referred to her as “Dick Cheney in three-inch heels,” highlighting the persistent gender-based criticisms women in politics endure. In addition to discussing her campaign, Clinton also critiqued her own party for its handling of abortion rights. She argued that Democrats failed to fully anticipate and counter the power of anti-abortion advocates, leading to the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which ended the federal right to abortion access. "We didn’t take it seriously, and we didn’t understand the threat," Clinton said. "Most Democrats, most Americans, did not realize we are in an existential struggle for the future of this country." She expressed regret, noting, "We could have done more to fight." Clinton’s interview, conducted by The New Times in February and published on Saturday, delves into these issues with a critical eye. Her insights highlight not only the personal challenges she faced as a pioneering female candidate but also broader systemic issues within American politics that continue to affect female leaders today. Clinton's reflections are a poignant reminder of the enduring challenges women face in politics, and her critique of her party’s handling of key issues like abortion rights underscores the need for more proactive and strategic approaches to political advocacy and campaigning. Credit: The Hill 2024-05-27 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Former President Donald Trump experienced a rare and harsh reception at the Libertarian National Convention, where he was met with boos, jeers, and heckling during his speech. This event highlighted the significant challenge Trump faces in broadening his appeal across the political spectrum as he vies for the Republican presidential nomination. The atmosphere at the Washington hotel on Saturday night was charged, with cries of “Bullshit!” and “Fuck you!” underscoring the rocky reception. Trump, a figure accustomed to adulation at his rallies, was confronted with a starkly different crowd. His plea for unity against President Joe Biden fell flat as delegates booed and shouted insults, underscoring the difficulty of winning over Libertarians, who prioritize small government and individual freedoms. "The fact is we should not be fighting each other," Trump implored. "If Joe Biden gets back in, there will be no more liberty for anyone in our country. Combine with us in a partnership – we’re asking that of the Libertarians. We must work together. Combine with us. You have to combine with us." His appeal, however, was met with a chorus of boos and jeers, marking a stunning rebuke for a man used to enthusiastic support. The Libertarian Party, which usually garners around 3% of the national vote, could play a crucial role in swing states this November. Yet, Trump’s attempt to court them by scolding and lecturing seemed clumsy. Taking the stage, he faced a barrage of criticism for running up federal deficits and benefiting pharmaceutical companies with the coronavirus vaccine development. Amid the chaos, a smaller group of Trump supporters, clad in "Make America Great Again" hats and T-shirts, tried to counter the hecklers with chants of "USA! USA!" One person even unfurled a Palestinian flag, adding to the confusion. Trump tried to lighten the mood by joking about his legal troubles: "If I wasn’t a Libertarian before, I sure as hell am a Libertarian now." Quoting political commentator Deroy Murdock, who argued that Libertarians should vote for Trump, he faced another wave of boos. "Only if you want to win. Maybe you don’t want to win. Only do that if you want to win. If you want to lose, don’t do that. Keep getting your 3% every four years," he retorted, trying to goad the audience into supporting him. Trump’s proposal that Libertarians should make him their presidential nominee or at least vote for him was again met with derision. "The Libertarians want to vote for me and most of them will because we have to get rid of the worst president in history and together we will," he insisted, but the crowd’s response remained hostile. Despite promising to appoint a Libertarian to his cabinet and other senior posts if elected, Trump’s pitch failed to resonate. "Pretty good. That’s pretty big," he claimed, but his usual salesmanship did not sway the audience. The familiar refrain of Libertarians getting only 3% of the vote prompted Trump to urge them to "make yourself winners, it’s time to be winners. You have a lot of common sense." His continued appeal to Libertarians was met with mixed reactions. While some chanted "We want Trump!" others demanded "End the Fed!"—a common Libertarian rallying cry against the Federal Reserve. A sign reading "No wannabe dictators!" was prominently displayed before its holder was removed by security. Trump attempted to align his record with Libertarian principles, citing tax cuts, slashing bureaucratic red tape, and cancelling federal diversity programs. He also promised to pardon January 6 protesters, whom he referred to as "hostages," and to commute the sentence of Ross Ulbricht, the founder of Silk Road. This particular promise elicited roars of approval from the crowd, indicating a shift in the room's sentiment. Gradually, the atmosphere became less hostile and more supportive, with Trump receiving acclaim for pledges to ban federal agencies from censoring free speech, introduce tax cuts, oppose the Green New Deal, secure the future of cryptocurrencies, and defend religious liberty and gun rights. However, the audience’s support was not unanimous. When Trump reiterated his desire for their support, boos once again filled the room. Delegates had varied reactions. Joe, who withheld his last name, bluntly dismissed Trump: "He’s full of shit." Glen Lewis, chairman of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, criticized Trump’s attempt to use fear of Biden to garner votes, saying, "Real men and women vote on integrity." Lewis, a military veteran, pointed out Trump supporters' inability to defend his policies on federal spending and pharmaceutical company protections. Michael Fitch, a long-time Libertarian, acknowledged Trump’s bravery in attending but remained unconvinced: "He actually raised the deficit – he spent millions and millions of dollars. He capitulated to the pharma regime. We can’t let this guy off the hook." However, some, like Joe Gravagna, a retired security worker, were more open to considering Trump, appreciating his stance on deregulation and non-intervention. Brandi Bohannon, a committed Republican, praised Trump for his honesty and opposition to open borders and wars. Libertarians will soon pick their White House nominee, and Trump’s appearance was an attempt to sway voters who might otherwise support independent candidate Robert Kennedy Jr., who also spoke at the convention. Despite a challenging start, Trump managed to find some common ground, but his broader appeal to Libertarians remains a significant hurdle. Credit: The Guardian 2024-05-27 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

A committee of MPs has suggested that the next government should consider banning smartphones for children under 16 within its first year in office. This recommendation comes in light of a report by the Education Select Committee, which highlights the significant dangers posed to children online. The committee's report underscores the growing concerns over children's screen time and its detrimental effects. Earlier this year, the UK government issued guidance to bar phone use in schools in England, sparking a broader debate about appropriate screen time for children. The NSPCC, a prominent children's charity, noted the absence of young people's voices in this discourse. According to the committee, the negative impacts of increased screen time for children far outweigh the benefits. Committee chairman Robin Walker cited "shocking statistics" about the damage being inflicted on under-18s. The report indicates a substantial rise in screen time, with one in four children exhibiting signs of behavioral addiction related to phone use. It also revealed that nearly all children own a phone by age 12, and 79% had encountered violent pornography by the age of 18. The Online Safety Act aims to hold social media companies accountable for protecting children from harmful content, but it will not be fully implemented until 2026. The committee warns that without immediate action, more children could be exposed to online harm. The report recommends that the next government, in collaboration with Ofcom, consider measures such as a total ban on smartphones for under-16s or default parental controls on devices. It also suggests encouraging mobile-phone companies to create child-specific phones that enable communication through calls, texts, and GPS location but restrict internet access. Richard Collard, associate head of child safety online policy at the NSPCC, criticized the idea of a blanket ban on smartphones and social media for under-16s, calling it a "blunt instrument." He emphasized that while technology can enhance young people's lives, they are frustrated by having to protect themselves online. Teenagers themselves have mixed feelings about the proposal. Jasper, a 15-year-old from Salford, acknowledged both the positive and negative aspects of online life. He mentioned that social media can help connect with like-minded individuals but also facilitates drama and confrontation. Jasper expressed uncertainty about coping without a phone. Harry, 16, suggested a ban might be more appropriate for younger children but conceded that teenagers spend too much time on their phones. Parents' opinions on the potential ban vary. Courtney Clarke, a mother of a 13-year-old daughter, expressed her dislike for smartphones but appreciated the ability to stay in touch with her child. She worried that removing her daughter's phone would strip away her social life, given the lack of alternative social venues like youth clubs. Conversely, Joanne Whaley regretted giving her 12-year-old son a smartphone, citing negative experiences and wishing she had opted for a basic phone instead. Clare Fernyhough, a mother who co-founded Smartphone Free Childhood, a grassroots organization advocating for restricted smartphone use among children, supported the committee's recommendations. She criticized Silicon Valley companies for prioritizing profits over child safety and called for government action to protect children from online harm. In February, the UK government issued new guidelines for schools to limit phone use, aiming to change the social norm of keeping phones out of classrooms. The Labour Party expressed openness to banning social media for under-16s, following Keir Starmer's meeting with Esther Ghey, who campaigned for online safety after her daughter Brianna's death. Lib Dem education spokesperson Munira Wilson urged the establishment of an independent children's online safety advocate to protect children's interests. She emphasized the need for both government and social-media companies to enhance online safety measures for children. The BBC sought comments from the Conservative and Labour parties on the committee's recommendations but had not received responses at the time of writing. The Green Party declined to comment. Pepe Di’Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, acknowledged the committee's valid concerns about excessive screen time but warned that a statutory ban on phones in schools might not be practical. He noted that schools would face significant challenges in managing phone confiscation and return processes. Sarah Hannafin, head of policy at the National Association of Head Teachers, argued that schools should develop their own mobile-phone policies, stressing the importance of children learning to build positive relationships with technology. Credit: BBC 2024-05-27 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Former President Donald Trump lashed out at Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the independent presidential candidate, following Kennedy's critique of Trump's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. The former president took to Truth Social on Saturday to express his disdain, calling Kennedy "one of the most Liberal Lunatics ever to run for office." “Don’t waste any Republican or Conservative votes on Junior,’” Trump wrote. “He caused massive high energy pricing in New York and New England. He just admitted that he was actually OK with the Vaccine. A Phony Radical Left fool whose poll numbers are TERRIBLE, and getting worse. His campaign is falling apart, great dissension!!!” Trump's fiery response came after Kennedy accused the Trump administration of violating First Amendment rights with its pandemic response measures. Speaking at the Libertarian National Convention, Kennedy argued that while Trump initially had the right instinct, he was ultimately "rolled" by bureaucrats into enforcing lockdowns and vaccine mandates, compromising fundamental rights. “President Trump allowed his health regulators to mandate science-free social distancing, which undermined our First Amendment rights to freedom of assembly. We could no longer peacefully gather,” Kennedy said during his speech. He further criticized Trump for caving in to pressure, resulting in the erosion of essential liberties “practically overnight.” Trump's rebuttal emphasized his belief that Kennedy is a Democratic plant designed to siphon votes away from the Republican base. “RFK Jr. is a Democrat ‘Plant,’ a Radical Left Liberal who’s been put in place in order to help Crooked Joe Biden, the Worst President in the History of the United States, get Re-Elected,” Trump claimed in a previous post. He warned that a vote for Kennedy would be a "WASTED PROTEST VOTE," potentially detrimental to the Republican cause. Kennedy, undeterred by Trump’s attacks, has continued to press his case against the former president's pandemic policies, positioning himself as a defender of civil liberties and constitutional rights. He has also challenged Trump to a debate at the Libertarian convention, arguing that it would be a neutral ground for both to present their cases. “It’s perfect neutral territory for you and me to have a debate where you can defend your record for your wavering supporters,” Kennedy said. “You yourself have said you’re not afraid to debate me as long as my poll numbers are decent. Well, they are. In fact, I’m the only presidential candidate in history who has polled ahead of both major party candidates in head-to-head races.” Despite Kennedy’s challenge, Trump has yet to confirm whether he will participate in the proposed debate. As the political tension between the two continues to escalate, both camps remain steadfast in their convictions. Kennedy's campaign has yet to respond to Trump’s latest comments, but it is clear that the independent candidate intends to keep the pressure on as the election approaches. Credit: Newsweek 2024-05-27 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Trump hinted at the possibility of former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley joining his team, despite their contentious history during the GOP nomination battle. Reacting to Haley's recent declaration that she would vote for Trump in the upcoming election, Trump expressed optimism about their future collaboration. Following a campaign rally in the South Bronx, New York City, Trump spoke with Long Island's News 12 about his potential alliance with Haley. He noted their shared ideological ground and praised her capabilities, despite the rough edges of their past campaign interactions. "Well, I think she’s gonna be on our team because we have a lot of the same ideas, same thoughts," Trump said. "I appreciated what she said. You know, we had a nasty campaign. It was pretty nasty. But she’s a very capable person, and I’m sure she’s going to be on our team in some form. Absolutely." Haley, who served as the U.N. ambassador during Trump's administration, recently announced her intention to vote for Trump. While she stopped short of a full endorsement, she emphasized the critical need for change, citing President Biden's tenure as disastrous. "As a voter, I put my priorities on a president who’s going to have the backs of our allies and hold our enemies to account, who would secure the border, no more excuses," Haley remarked at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank she joined last month. Her comments signal a pragmatic alignment with Trump’s policies over those of the current administration. Haley, who concluded her own presidential campaign in March, also urged Trump to engage with the millions of voters who supported her during the GOP primary contests, hinting at her potential influence within the party. Despite the speculation, Trump refrained from disclosing his pick for vice president. However, he did offer a glimpse into his thoughts, mentioning several potential candidates. “You could take people like Ben Carson, you could take people like Marco Rubio, JD Vance. I mean, there are so many. Elise’s [Stefanik] doing a fantastic job,” Trump said, referencing the former Department of Housing and Urban Development secretary, and Republican senators from Florida and Ohio, respectively, as well as the Republican representative from New York. “But I could go on for quite a long time.” The former president added that there is a "good chance" he will announce his choice for running mate at the Republican National Convention in July, keeping the political world on tenterhooks. As the election season heats up, Trump’s strategic movements and potential alliances will be closely watched. Haley’s willingness to support Trump, despite their previous rivalry, underscores a pragmatic unity within the Republican ranks as they gear up for a challenging election. The coming months will reveal whether this unity can translate into a formidable political force against the current administration. Credit: The Hill 2024-05-27 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

British cities, once known for their sense of community and civic decency, are increasingly becoming hostile environments for law-abiding citizens. The encroachment of criminality and thuggery is not just a perceived threat but a stark reality, as demonstrated by personal experiences and broader societal trends. A recent personal incident in North-West London starkly illustrates this shift. After a routine visit to Waitrose for some supplies, I found myself juggling items in my handbag due to the supermarket's new policy of only offering "bags for life." My phone, wedged between a pack of blueberries and some Cornish Quartz cheddar, fell out unnoticed as I was returning home. Within 25 minutes, my tracking service showed that the phone had traveled several miles to central London, confirming it had been stolen almost immediately after it fell. This isn't an isolated incident but a reflection of the broader decline in social trust and civic decency in London and other major British cities. My parents moved out of London in the early 1980s due to frequent burglaries and thuggery. However, the current environment feels markedly worse, with a near-total breakdown in social trust. Despite the persistence of good Samaritans—those who offer seats to the elderly, assist the blind, or help carry heavy bags—there is a growing sense that these decent individuals are fighting a losing battle. The fear of intervening in criminal acts is justified. Sadiq Khan's London, for example, feels increasingly anarchic and dirty, with the risks of being a good citizen becoming more apparent. The reluctance to intervene is not unfounded. It’s not just that criminals are becoming bolder; it’s also the apparent apathy of the police towards crimes like theft, shoplifting, and burglaries. This neglect is coupled with shocking stories of what can happen to those who dare to confront wrongdoing. Earlier this month, 19-year-old Tieran Carmody was convicted of stabbing 35-year-old father Max Richardson to death. Richardson, along with his neighbors, had merely asked Carmody to stop loitering with a cannabis joint near a children's play area in Harlow. Such violent encounters are becoming alarmingly common. In another incident, a young man was fatally stabbed after asking muggers to return his gold chains in a North London park. Similarly, random acts of violence have claimed the lives of ordinary citizens, such as the passenger stabbed on a train near Beckenham Junction and 87-year-old Bernard Fowler, who was killed at random in Havering. Beyond these violent crimes, there is also a pervasive lack of politeness and decency in public spaces. Instances of people watching football or playing music loudly on public transport have become widespread. This behavior continues unchecked because intervening can feel too risky. For example, on a train from Oxford, a man began watching football on his phone in a quiet coach. When a woman politely asked him to stop, the entire carriage tensed in fear. Fortunately, he complied, but the anxiety his behavior caused was palpable. Even in places where one might expect more decorum, such as hospitals, inconsiderate behavior is rampant. After my baby was born, I experienced a father on the other side of a curtain playing loud TikTok clips throughout the night in the maternity ward at UCL. No one dared ask him to stop, despite the obvious discomfort it caused. This erosion of basic decency and respect for shared environments is compounded by the police’s seeming disinterest in pursuing serious criminals. Instead, they appear to focus on minor social media infractions. This misallocation of resources has made Britain’s cities stomping grounds for the worst elements of society. "Can we recover some of what once made us civilized—awareness of others, basic respect for shared environments, the ability to defer selfish and base impulses?" This question remains critical as the police continue to prioritize lesser offenses over more serious threats. The current state of law and order has left the law-abiding citizens feeling abandoned and vulnerable. As criminal behavior goes unchecked, the once vibrant and safe urban spaces are becoming hostile territories. The police need to refocus their efforts on protecting citizens from real threats rather than policing social media content. Until this happens, British cities will remain challenging places for decent, law-abiding people, with thugs and criminals gaining the upper hand. Recovering the lost civility and trust in public life is an arduous task, but one that is essential for the health of our society. Opinion Zoe Strimpel Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-05-27 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Inflammatory personal insults & replies removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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