#Israel Security Assistance Support Act

[saywhat-politics]

The Columbia graduate student has been in immigration agents’ custody since March 8.

June 20, 2025, 11:04 AM MST / Updated June 20, 2025, 1:58 PM MST

By Chloe Atkins and David K. Li

A federal judge ordered the Trump administration Friday to release pro-Palestinian activist and Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil, ending more than three months of custody in an ongoing test of the executive branch's power to unilaterally act against legal U.S. residents.

Khalil, whose plight has been center stage of Trump's vow to crack down on opponents of Israel's incursion into Gaza, has been in immigration agents’ custody since March 8.

“After more than three months we can finally breathe a sigh of relief and know that Mahmoud is on his way home to me and Deen, who never should have been separated from his father,” Khalil’s wife, Noor Abdalla, said in a statement released by the American Civil Liberties Union.

“We know this ruling does not begin to address the injustices the Trump administration has brought upon our family, and so many others the government is trying to silence for speaking out against Israel’s ongoing genocide against Palestinians," she said. "But today we are celebrating Mahmoud coming back to New York to be reunited with our little family, and the community that has supported us since the day he was unjustly taken for speaking out for Palestinian freedom.”

Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin lashed out at "rogue" U.S. District Court Judge Michael Farbiarz, saying he had no authority to order Khalil’s release.

Pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil released after months in detention

[zvaigzdelasas]

[Dawn is Pakistani Private Media]

The heinous killing of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh risks tipping the Middle East into “wider conflict”, the chair of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) told a meeting on Wednesday.

The comments from Gambian Foreign Minister Mamadou Tangara came as a senior Iranian official said during the meeting that the Islamic republic would need to defend itself from Israel, which it blames for Haniyeh’s death last week in Tehran.

Iranian and Palestinian officials called for Wed­nesday’s gathering of the 57-member OIC in the Saudi coastal city of Jeddah, saying the body needed to respond to the killing of the Hamas leader.[...]

Haniyeh’s killing “will not quell the Palestinian cause but rather it amplifies it, underscoring the urgency for justice and human rights for the Pales­tinian people”, [Tangara] said. “The sovereignty and territorial integrity of nation states are fundamental principles underpinning the international order.

“Respecting these principles has profound implications and their violation equally carries significant consequences.”[...]

“Currently, in the absence of any appropriate action by the (UN) Security Council against the aggressions and violations of the Israeli regime, the Islamic Republic of Iran has no choice but to use its inherent right to legitimate defence against the aggressions of this regime,” Ali Bagheri, Iran’s acting foreign minister, told the OIC.

[NewStraitsTimes is Malaysian Private Media]

Malaysia has proposed four key measures to support the Palestinian cause, including the establishment of a group of eminent persons tasked with assessing and identifying measures to implement the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) Advisory Opinion.[...]

He said the measures emphasised the need to expand global support for Palestine, leveraging the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) rulings and the unity achieved by Palestinian factions through the Beijing Declaration.

"Such measures should focus on universal jurisdiction and ensure the consistent application of international law," he stated during the meeting in Jeddah, yesterday.

Second, Malaysia called for the reinstatement of the United Nations Special Committee Against Apartheid.

The primary task of this committee would be to halt the illegal occupation of Palestinian Territories (OPT) by Israel and to address the apartheid policies imposed on Palestinians, he added.

Third, Malaysia proposed that the OIC, in collaboration with like-minded countries, request a resumed session of the 10th Emergency Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on the Issue of Palestine.

"This suggestion is to discuss the means and ways to implement or "give effect" to the ICJ's Advisory Opinion.

"Finally, we should extend our undivided support and fully assist, in the rebuilding of the Palestinian economy and livelihood post-conflict. This is a key step that would ease their return to normalcy," Mohamad said.

Following the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, who also led Hamas' political bureau, Malaysia called for a concerted effort to counter Israeli propaganda and misinformation.

"Malaysia has always been a strong advocate for peace and stability. As much as we condemn the assassination, we urge all parties to restraint, to avoid escalating the situation into a regional and global crisis.

"The attack in Tehran could well be an attempt to derail the ongoing peace negotiations in the Middle East.

"We should not fall into their trap. Cool heads must prevail. We should support the continuation of the peace process to be resolved at the negotiating table. Diplomacy is the way to go," he noted.[...]

According to [Turkish State Media] Anadolu Agency (AA), the world body also urged the UN Security Council (UNSC) to impose an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire on Israeli aggression and "ensure adequate and sustainable access to humanitarian aid throughout Gaza Strip."

7 Aug 24

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Judd Legum and Noel Sims at Popular Information:

The Republican reconciliation legislation — which President Trump refers to as his "big, beautiful bill" — is winding its way through Congress. Trump is right about one thing: it's big. The tax and spending legislation, which is exempt from the filibuster and can therefore be passed without any Democratic votes, is 389 pages. Tucked away on page 380 is a provision that would give the Trump administration a powerful new tool to silence dissent. The provision would grant the Treasury Secretary the power to terminate the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit group they deem a "terrorist supporting organization." A "terrorist supporting organization" is any nonprofit that provides "material support" to a designated terrorist group. The term "material support" is broadly defined, and includes "any service," "expert advice," or "personnel" — regardless of whether that support is connected to violent acts. Nor is there any standard of evidence regarding what kind of information the Treasury Secretary can consider when deciding whether a nonprofit provided "material support." The Treasury Secretary only needs to notify the nonprofit of the impending designation. They can decline to describe the "material support" the nonprofit allegedly provided if the Treasury Secretary decides "disclosure of such description would be inconsistent with national security or law enforcement interests." The nonprofit would have 90 days to respond to the Treasury Secretary or challenge the designation in court. But it shifts the burden of proof onto the nonprofit to establish its innocence. A similar provision passed the House as a standalone bill in November 2024 on a 219-184 vote. 15 Democrats and all but one Republican supported the bill, largely based on allegations that nonprofit groups were supporting Hamas after the October 7 attacks on Israel.

But the nonprofit world believed the legislation was overly broad and ripe for abuse. David L. Thompson, acting CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, warned that the legislation "could be used to target nonprofits that provide humanitarian support in areas where it is difficult to determine who is or isn’t a terrorist." In a statement opposing the legislation, the National Council of Nonprofits, the Council on Foundations, and United Philanthropy Forum noted that, even if a nonprofit avoided a permanent designation, "designees would risk irreparable damage to their operations and reputation." It is not hard to imagine this new power being abused by Trump. In his first term, for example, Trump called "Antifa," a loose coalition of anti-fascists, a terrorist group, and conflated them with the Black Lives Matter movement. Under this proposed new authority, the Treasury Secretary could then theoretically designate any nonprofit that assists with a Black Lives Matter protest as a "terrorist supporting organization." Or Trump could claim that a private university that failed to crack down on protests of Israel's military campaign in Palestine was providing "material support" to Hamas and, therefore, could be summarily stripped of its nonprofit status. Earlier this year, Trump said publicly that he was exploring ways to strip the nonprofit status of "environmental groups and specifically the ethics watchdog organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW."

[...]

It is illegal for anyone in the U.S. — including nonprofit organizations — to provide material support to terrorist organizations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. And the IRS can revoke the tax-exempt status of a nonprofit which engages in illegal activity. But the IRS cannot simply claim that a nonprofit has done something to violate the law and immediately revoke their tax-exempt status without notice. Instead, any question about tax-exempt eligibility must be addressed through an IRS audit. IRS auditors will investigate the forms submitted by the nonprofit and can examine their correspondence or send auditors to investigate the nonprofit in person. If the IRS finds evidence that a nonprofit is in violation of the terms of its tax-exempt status, the IRS can allow it to keep its status while mandating operational changes or propose revocation. If the IRS revokes a nonprofit’s tax-exempt status, the nonprofit has 90 days to seek a declaratory judgement from a court about its tax-exempt status. If the court also finds that its tax-exempt status should be revoked, the nonprofit can appeal that decision in a higher court.

The stalled-out “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” has a major red flag provision: it grants the Treasury Secretary the power to terminate the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit group they deem a "terrorist supporting organization”, and with the Trump Regime in charge, it could broadly apply to anyone oppose to Evil 47.

See Also:

Unmasking Russia: Republicans Bury the "Nonprofit Killer" Amendment in the Tax Plan

[unsolicited-opinions]

In February of 2024, Biden signed this executive order.

This included:

"(a) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:

          (i)    to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have directly or indirectly engaged or attempted to engage in, any of the following:                (A)  actions — including directing, enacting, implementing, enforcing, or failing to enforce policies — that threaten the peace, security, or stability of the West Bank; or                (B)  planning, ordering, otherwise directing, or participating in any of the following actions affecting the West Bank:                     (1)  an act of violence or threat of violence targeting civilians;                     (2)  efforts to place civilians in reasonable fear of violence with the purpose or effect of necessitating a change of residence to avoid such violence;                     (3)  property destruction; or                     (4)  seizure or dispossession of property by private actors;           (ii)   to be or have been a leader or official of:                (A)  an entity, including any government entity, that has engaged in, or whose members have engaged in, any of the activities described in subsections (a) or (b) of this section related to the leader’s or official’s tenure; or                (B)  an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order as a result of activities relating to the leader’s or official’s tenure;           (iii)  to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any person blocked pursuant to this order; or           (iv)   to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person blocked pursuant to this order; or      (b)  any foreign person determined by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury:           (i)   to have committed or have attempted to commit, to pose a significant risk of committing, or to have participated in training to commit acts of terrorism affecting the West Bank; or           (ii)  to be a leader or official of an entity sanctioned pursuant to subsection (b)(i) of this section.

     Sec. 2.  The prohibitions in section 1 of this order apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the date of this order.       Sec. 3.  The prohibitions in section 1 of this order include:      (a)  the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and      (b)  the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Okay, so this applies to any Israeli, acting in Israel, who promotes violence against Palestinians in the West Bank, in Israel.

How were such people sanctioned?

They were prevented from being in the United States

   Sec. 4.  (a)  The unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of noncitizens determined to meet one or more of the criteria in section 1 of this order would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and the entry of such persons into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, is hereby suspended, except when the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security, as appropriate, determines that the person’s entry would not be contrary to the interests of the United States, including when the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security, as appropriate, so determines, based on a recommendation of the Attorney General, that the person’s entry would further important United States law enforcement objectives.      (b)  The Secretary of State shall implement this order as it applies to visas pursuant to such procedures as the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, may establish.      (c)  The Secretary of Homeland Security shall implement this order as it applies to the entry of noncitizens pursuant to such procedures as the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may establish.      (d)  Such persons shall be treated by this section in the same manner as persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions).

Question for democrats who are suddenly, newly alarmed about the federal government disallowing foreign nationals in the US based on their promotion of violent ideologies:

Why did you not oppose Biden's executive order?

Biden's order made clear that foreign nationals who promote violence should not be welcome in the US, and specifically applied this to a particular ideology in a particular place.

I was okay with that because I don't want to welcome violent ideologues into the US, but why is the same idea not applicable to Khalil?

- Is it because Biden applied this idea to speech in Israel, not speech in the US?

- Is it because Biden was your own party's leader and you just want to oppose Trump?

- Is it because you're comfortable with sanctioning Jews/Israelis, but not Muslims/Palestinians/Syrians?

- Is it because you (incorrectly) believe that Khalil has only advocated for nonviolent action?

Help me understand, because the hypocrisy seems overwhelming.

[salvia-plathitudes]

By Janet Lorin and Brooke Sutherland
April 15, 2025, 12:00 AM EDT, updated at April 15, 2025, 7:26 AM EDT

After weeks of saying he’s willing to work with the Trump administration to combat antisemitism, Harvard University President Alan Garber emerged Monday as the highest-profile challenger to the government’s effort to force change at elite US colleges.

The retribution was swift. 

A government task force on antisemitism said late Monday that it plans to freeze $2.2 billion of multiyear grants after Harvard’s decision to reject new demands from the administration. In a statement earlier in the day, Garber had argued that the expanded requests crossed red lines regarding academic freedom and interference in higher education.

“It makes clear that the intention is not to work with us to address antisemitism in a cooperative and constructive manner,” Garber wrote on Harvard’s website. “Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the ‘intellectual conditions’ at Harvard.”

Harvard’s rebuke — backed by two law firms in a letter to US agencies — won plaudits from Democratic lawmakers, including former president Barack Obama, alumni and academics who have been eager to see resistance to President Donald Trump’s use of threats and executive orders to reshape institutions. 

But Trump escalated the dispute with Harvard on Tuesday, threatening the university’s tax-exempt status.

“Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting “Sickness?” Trump posted on Truth Social. “Remember, Tax Exempt Status is totally contingent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!”

Along with targeting law firms and cities, the Trump administration has sought sweeping changes to universities, claiming that top schools aren’t doing enough to fight antisemitism on campus. The White House has criticized schools’ response to disruptions around pro-Palestinian student protests after the Oct. 7, 2023, attack by Hamas on Israel and the Jewish state’s retaliatory response in Gaza.

Already, the government has canceled $400 million in funding to Columbia University, paused funds to Northwestern and Cornell and suspended money for Princeton. US agencies have previously said they are reviewing about $9 billion of Harvard’s grants and contracts. That’s sparked concerns among faculty, students, lawmakers and alumni that the administration’s actions are suppressing free speech and harming scientific endeavor.

‘A Gamble’

As the richest US university, with a $53 billion endowment, Harvard has more financial power than others to weather a potential legal and political fight. Yet the administration’s response Monday — saying Harvard’s pushback “reinforces a troubling entitlement mindset” — indicates that it’s willing to strip key funds for research, medicine and public health at the Massachusetts school.

“Harvard’s decision to fight the government, one of the few entities that’s bigger than Harvard, is a gamble,” said Adam Kissel, a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation and former deputy assistant secretary at the US Department of Education. The government likely “will begin taking action to issue findings and final determinations that will inevitably bring Harvard back to the table.”

A Harvard spokesman referred to Garber’s earlier statements when asked about the funding freeze: “For the government to retreat from these partnerships now risks not only the health and well-being of millions of individuals, but also the economic security and vitality of our nation.”

Alan Garber Photographer: Craig F. Walker/The Boston Globe/Getty Images

Harvard posted the administration’s letter from late Friday that detailed the new demands tied to federal funding. They included reforming the university’s governance; ending diversity, equity and inclusion programs; changes to its admissions and hiring; and curbing the “power” of certain students, faculty and administrators because of their ideological views. In his response, Garber declared that Harvard wouldn’t “surrender its independence or constitutional rights.”

The statement drew support from former Harvard President Larry Summers, who said he hoped other universities would adopt a similar stance to defend academic freedom. Massachusetts Representative Seth Moulton, a Democrat and Harvard alumnus, praised the school’s leaders “for finding the courage to stand against modern-day tyrants,” while Democratic Governor Maura Healey, also a graduate, said she was grateful to Garber and Harvard for standing up for educational freedom.

“We all agree that antisemitism has no place in America and that it should be fought in the workplace, classrooms and everywhere,” she said in a statement. “Complying with the Trump administration’s dangerous demands would have made us all less safe and less free.”

Obama, a Harvard Law alumnus, said the university’s move “set an example” in rejecting what he called “an unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom.”

“Let’s hope other institutions follow suit,” he added.

Columbia, which has sparked criticism over its response to some of Trump’s demands, released its own statement late Monday.

“We would reject any agreement in which the government dictates what we teach, research, or who we hire,” Acting President Claire Shipman said in a message posted on the school’s website. “Though we seek to continue constructive dialog with the government, we would reject any agreement that would require us to relinquish our independence and autonomy as an educational institution.”

Princeton President Chris Eisgruber said his university “stands with Harvard.”

But the Trump administration continues to hold significant leverage over the institutions. Elise Stefanik, a Republican lawmaker from upstate New York, said it’s time to “totally cut off U.S. taxpayer funding to this institution that has failed to live up to its founding motto Veritas.” Stefanik, a Harvard alum, has been a leading critic of the university, its leadership and Penny Pritzker, senior fellow of the Harvard Corp., which oversees the university.

Funding freezes also risk hitting both the school and the local economy, including Harvard’s renowned hospital system. The school’s most recent financial report shows that 11% of its $6.5 billion in annual operating revenue comes from federally sponsored research funding.

The school of public health is the most reliant on “sponsored support,” at 59% of its operating revenue, followed by the school of engineering at 37% and the medical school at 35%. The report doesn’t break down federal support versus other money for the schools. Federal funding made up approximately 68% of total sponsored revenue in fiscal 2024.

While Harvard’s $53 billion endowment is more than three times the size of Columbia’s, the university can’t spend it like a bank account. About 70% of the annual distribution is restricted by donor terms to specific programs, departments, or purposes, according to the school. It distributed $2.4 billion in fiscal 2024.

Most universities don’t have enough cash and cash liquidity to go indefinitely without such a large portion of their expected budget, said Matthew Wynter, an assistant professor of finance at Stony Brook University in New York. While there’s potential that donations will increase in the wake of Harvard’s resistant stance, the university still has to repair relations with some of its biggest financial supporters after its initial approach to combating antisemitism on campus created significant rifts.

What’s more, turmoil in the US stock market and concern about a potential recession may also lead some alumni to hold back.

“Even for a school like Harvard that has an enormous endowment, in this financial market, it’s very difficult to raise money because of a lot of their alumni gifts are going to be financial assets, which are also performing poorly right now,” Wynter said.

Harvard last week sold $750 million of bonds amid the threats to its federal funding. “As part of ongoing contingency planning for a range of financial circumstances, Harvard is evaluating resources needed to advance its academic and research priorities,” the school said.

The university is working with law firms Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and King & Spalding in response to the administration. From a legal perspective, the government’s demands on issues such as requiring diversity on ideological view points were “clearly overly aggressive,” said Vikram Amar, a professor at the University of California Davis School of Law and the former dean of the University of Illinois College of Law.

“I am not surprised Harvard couldn’t and didn’t accept all that was being asked of it,” he said.

[eretzyisrael]

The first two paragraphs of this Washington Post report from Saturday are simply amazing:

Israel will begin implementing sweeping new visa and registration rules for international aid organizations operating in the Palestinian territories, introducing restrictions that humanitarian groups say would politicize their work, put local and international staff at risk and undermine relief efforts in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The measures, which Israel announced this week, give officials broad authority to reject the registration of nongovernmental organizations providing assistance to Palestinians using a far-reaching set of guidelines. Among the criteria: whether an NGO or its employees have ever called for a boycott of Israel, denied its existence “as a Jewish and democratic state,” or expressed support for legal proceedings against Israeli citizens in international courts for acts carried out while serving in the military or any security agency.

Virtually every aid agency insists that its mission is non-political. So when Israel is asking them whether they are adhering to their own standards, if they weren't political, they should be happy to be transparent about their positions and their standards for hiring workers who are also unbiased.

It isn't Israel that is politicizing their work - Israel is trying to only work with NGOs who haven't taken political positions against Israel, as they claim they do!

The article goes on to say that "Israel has also repeated, without evidence, its long-standing charges — denied by aid agencies — that the assistance going to Gaza is being diverted to Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that rules the enclave."

There are numerous videos and photos showing that theft. 

Hamas members beat civilians and steal the humanitarian aid they received from international organizations—facilitated by Israel. Hamas puts its terrorist goals over Gazans' needs. pic.twitter.com/lFuaWU0bdx— Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) December 9, 2023

No one can deny that goods that entered Gaza and should be distributed for free, like baby formula, diapers and flour, are being sold in the markets at high prices. Earlier in the war Hamas claimed to send out gangs to "confiscate" goods being sold for high prices where they claimed they then sold for reasonable prices - but shouldn't the goods have been given away to begin with? 

Gazans know the truth and say it all the time, but that is not good enough for the media like the Washington Post. 

[rogue-ai-cat]

American Politics — What Happened Today That You Should Know

Wednesday, June 18, 2025

Trump is checked out while his administration is seizing control of everything that moves.

While he saluted flagpoles and watched construction crews, his appointees weaponized student visas, Medicaid databases, and federal contracts into surveillance and deportation tools. They're moving with 54-minute deadlines and contempt-of-court defiance to capture every institution they can reach.

Iran is pushing us toward the biggest war in decades, but Trump's too distracted calling Fed chairs "stupid" to notice his own government is both executing authoritarian control and falling apart simultaneously.

The system is fighting back through courts, walkouts, and protest art, but his underlings don't need him paying attention to finish the job. That's why you need to pay attention to them.

Trump claims Iran proposed White House talks while threatening military strikes, but Tehran’s UN mission denies making any such proposal.

State Dept. contradicts Amb. Huckabee’s social media announcement of evacuation flights for Americans in Israel, saying it has no plans to assist departures.

Supreme Court allows Nuclear Regulatory Commission to override Texas and New Mexico governors’ opposition for temporary nuclear waste storage sites.

Michigan Attorney General Nessel and environmental groups file requests for rehearing of Energy Secretary Wright’s emergency order forcing coal plant to stay open.

MT Gov. Gianforte vetoes community solar bill despite supermajority legislative support, citing cost concerns that advocates say contradict experience in 23 other states.

Supreme Court upholds state transgender care bans for minors in 6-3 ruling, with Sotomayor reading rare dissent comparing majority’s deference to past defenses of interracial marriage bans.

Trump administration ends Trevor Project’s specialized LGBTQ+ suicide prevention service through federal hotline, giving nonprofit 30 days notice to shut down program.

EEOC Acting Chair Lucas tells senators agency will follow White House directives and defends dropping transgender discrimination cases to comply with Trump executive order.

FL AG Uthmeier calls to “denaturalize and deport” MN Rep. Omar after she criticized Trump’s military parade.

Texas quietly defunds Abbott’s signature border wall program after spending $3 billion to build only 8% of planned structure full of gaps migrants easily walk around.

Federal Reserve keeps rates steady despite Trump calling Powell “stupid” and demanding cuts to reduce government’s $1.2 trillion annual debt interest costs.

New data shows Medicare and Social Security stop paying full benefits in 8-9 years, earlier than projected, before accounting for Trump’s pending budget bill that would trigger additional Medicare cuts.

Justice Dept. plans to cut two-thirds of inspectors monitoring gun dealers for illegal sales as part of Trump administration effort to “defang and downsize” ATF.

Harvard cancer researcher Kseniia Petrova appears in court after months in custody for allegedly smuggling frog embryos as federal investigator admits he can’t define “biological materials” central to charges.

Senate Democrats walk out of Judiciary Committee hearing on Biden mental fitness as Durbin accuses Republicans of ignoring oversight of Trump administration’s military deployments and Sen. Padilla handcuffing.

FL Attorney General Uthmeier held in civil contempt for defying federal court order halting immigration law, must now file biweekly reports or face fines.

California senators demand Trump officials stop using Medicaid data for deportations after administration gave CMS 54-minute deadline to share millions of enrollees’ immigration status.

US resumes issuing student visas but requires all international applicants to make social media accounts public, warning private accounts may be suspicious.

Feds sue Kentucky Gov. Beshear over in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants living in KY, claiming it gives them preferential treatment over out-of-state U.S. citizens.

FL Board of Governors expected to approve three DeSantis appointees as university presidents after rejecting University of Florida’s choice Santa Ono as too “woke.”

DHS Secretary Noem requires personal approval for all contracts over $100k despite facing 5,100 annual reviews, prompting former acquisition chief to call policy “absolutely nuts.”

Independent National Academies report finds 30% of air traffic control facilities understaffed due to government shutdowns and hiring freezes, urges Congress to provide FAA resources to fix crisis.

Trump personally watches flagpole installation on White House lawn while Iran-Israel conflict escalates and questions mount about potential US military involvement.

FIGHTING BACK

“Dictator Approved” statue appears on National Mall showing gold thumb crushing Statue of Liberty, featuring quotes from Putin and Kim Jong Un praising Trump.

Take Action:

Write to your officials with resist.bot

Call your officials with 5calls.org

Find events at mobilize.us

[girlactionfigure]

@shlomo_fishman

One of the main foundations of the Palestinian narrative states that: "according to international law, Israel is occupying Palestinian land".

What most people don't know is that the international law states, in fact, the exact opposite. I'll explain.

In the picture below, you can see article 80 in the UN charter, signed by the UN in 1945 during the San Francisco convention. As stated, its purpose was to ensure the rights given by trusteeship agreements approved by the UN, one of them being the British Mandate which officially began in 1920 and was designated to the establishment of a "national home" for the Jewish people on the area shown in the map below, as previously declared in the Balfour Declaration in 1918.

Now you may say: "but what about the UN general assembly Resolution 181 (the partition plan)?". The answer here is pretty simple: first of all, the general committee has no official power to enforce their decisions, which are mostly symbolic. Second, the plan was never set in motion, as the Arab leadership refused to accept it and the war between the Jewish population and the Arab one, broke down. Regarding the UN security council, Article 24(2) states: "the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations". Which means it also cannot overrule article 80 in the UN charter.

There is also an argument I heard, about the British Mandate being a class A mandate. Class A mandates, were territories formerly controlled by the Ottoman Empire that were deemed to "... have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory". There is one major problem with this argument: the Muslim Arabs NEVER had any national ambitions back then, nor wanted an independent state until after 1948.

Haj Amin Al-Husseini, probably the most prominent Muslim leader during the British Mandate and the Mufti of Jerusalem at that time, who dedicated his life to combat Zionism and purge the Jewish population in the area, even reaching Adolf Hitler at some point to help him fulfill those plans, never wanted an establishment of an independent Muslim state.

While launching massacres against the Jewish population (the great Arab revolt, 1929 Arab riots and more) and trying to convince Arabs not to sell lands to Jews, he justified it only using religious Islamic motives and blood libels against the Jews. Their only mission was to erase Zionism, so there was never an appeal by him, nor the Arab League and not any other Muslim leadership of that time to the international community, for the establishment of a Muslim state called "Palestine".

So when I define the Palestinians as: "a political movement pretending to be a nation, only to combat Zionism", I talk about this exactly.

This text sums up the main things you should know about the non-existent Israeli occupation, which many people unfortunately don't. So it was very important to me to write about it, especially in these difficult times, and I'd appreciate your support in spreading this message, a lot.

[jjmcquade-misc]

Sometimes silence speaks volumes

1. The JFK Assassination: Still Unsolved

It’s “way too early to pretend anyone has ‘solved’ the JFK murder in any concrete way.” More than six decades after President John F. Kennedy’s assassination on November 22, 1963, no definitive resolution has emerged. The official investigation, conducted by the Warren Commission, concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. However, this conclusion has been widely disputed. Subsequent efforts, like the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in the late 1970s, suggested a probable conspiracy but couldn’t identify the culprits. Even with the release of thousands of documents under the JFK Records Act of 1992—most recently in 2022 and 2023—the case remains a puzzle. These documents offer tantalizing details but no smoking gun.

2. Israel’s Alleged Involvement: What Do the Documents Say?

We’ve definitely seen enough in the documents to indicate that Israel was involved in some way.

Evidence of Intelligence Ties

One notable revelation from recently released documents is the existence of a secret intelligence pipeline between the CIA and Israeli intelligence during the early 1960s. This relationship was overseen by James Angleton, the CIA’s counterintelligence chief, who was known for his strong ties to Israel. This pipeline facilitated the sharing of sensitive information, reflecting a close partnership at the time of Kennedy’s presidency. However, this fact alone doesn’t directly implicate Israel in the assassination. It’s a piece of historical context showing collaboration, not conspiracy.

Speculation vs. Hard Evidence

Some researchers and commentators have speculated about Israeli involvement, often pointing to Angleton’s role or to broader geopolitical tensions, like Kennedy’s pressure on Israel over its nuclear program at Dimona. Yet, the leap from intelligence cooperation to orchestrating or participating in the assassination requires concrete evidence, which the documents don’t provide. For instance, no released file explicitly links Israeli operatives to Oswald, the shooting, or a conspiracy. Without specific documents tying Israel to the act, this remains a hypothesis, not a fact “indicated” by the evidence.

My Take

While the intelligence relationship is intriguing and warrants scrutiny, I’d argue it’s premature to say the documents “definitely” show Israel’s involvement. They suggest possibilities, but definitive proof is still missing. I’m not of the belief that Israel was the primary player, correlation isn’t causation, and we need more than suggestive dots to connect.

3. CIA Efforts to Cover Up: A Documented Pattern.

Efforts by the CIA over the decades to cover that up, and here, the evidence is stronger and more concrete. CIA Director John McCone instructed the agency to offer only “passive, reactive, and selective” assistance. This meant they didn’t fully disclose what they knew about Oswald—his travels, contacts, or surveillance. For example, the CIA monitored Oswald’s visit to Mexico City in 1963, where he met with Soviet and Cuban officials, but this wasn’t fully shared with investigators. Why? Some argue it was to protect ongoing operations or national security; others see it as evidence of a cover-up.

Ongoing Secrecy

Even after decades, some JFK-related files remain classified or redacted. The slow drip of releases, thousands of pages, yet not the full picture, fuels suspicion. Researchers like Jefferson Morley have highlighted how the CIA’s actions suggest they’re hiding something, whether it’s embarrassing incompetence or deeper involvement. This pattern of selective disclosure supports my point about efforts to obscure the truth, though it’s unclear if it specifically hides Israeli involvement or something else entirely.

Connecting to Israel?

If the CIA was covering up Israel’s role, we’d need evidence linking their secrecy to that specific angle. So far, the documents point more to internal CIA concerns, Oswald’s potential ties to communist entities, for instance, than to an Israeli connection. The cover-up is real; its target is less certain.

4. Influencers’ Silence: What Does It Mean?

I find it very interesting that some influencers, particularly on the right, avoid discussing Israel’s potential involvement or “pretend like that is not what the documents say.

Why the Avoidance?

Political Bias: Many right-leaning influencers align with pro-Israel sentiments due to U.S. foreign policy traditions or evangelical support for Israel. Discussing a possible Israeli role in JFK’s death could clash with that stance.

Backlash Fear: The topic is a third rail, raising it risks accusations of anti-Semitism or conspiracy-mongering, which could damage reputations or platforms.

Evidence Skepticism: Some may simply find the Israel angle unconvincing, given the lack of hard proof, and thus not worth the controversy.

Silence as a Signal

That “silence speaks volumes” and that “you can learn a lot about the information space by watching how people respond” is astute. Silence isn’t proof of complicity, but it can reveal biases, pressures, or agendas shaping public discourse. When influencers dodge a topic this sensitive, it’s fair to ask why? Every American should be entirely dedicated to full disclosure of the facts. The reluctance could reflect less about the truth and more about the incentives of the modern media landscape.

5. Israel’s Current Actions: A Separate Concern

Israel has resumed bombing innocent civilians in a huge way this week, and that, the deep state of Israel is the elephant in the room. This shift broadens the discussion significantly. Israel’s military operations, have indeed drawn global criticism for killing of civilians. This is a complex issue rooted in decades of conflict, involving Hamas, Hezbollah, and broader Middle East dynamics.

Linking Past and Present

Israel’s deep state an elephant in the room, I see a continuity between its historical intelligence activities and today’s policies. While Israel’s intelligence apparatus (e.g., Mossad) has long been influential, connecting it to both JFK and current bombings requires evidence of intent and capability across decades. The documents hint at hidden truths, about the CIA, maybe Israel, maybe others, but they don’t yet tell the full story.

[dr-retard]

I love finding out that congress intends to bar itself from future attempts of reducing foreign aid. Truly.

[learnwithmearticles]

A summary of the stances spoken by Kamala Harris during the presidential debate on September 10, 2024.

Reinstating protections of Roe v. Wade

Continue addressing, as she refers to it, transnational organizations trafficking fentanyl and weapons

She does not refer to individuals, but to organizations during this portion

Not banning fracking

In fact, she mentions that the Inflation Reduction Act provided new leases for oil drilling

Investing in diverse energy sources

Decreasing dependence on foreign oil

Support starting up small businesses through tax deductions

Increase the child tax cut ($6,000 for the first year after birth)

Increase homes by 3 million by the end of her first term

Downpayment assistance for first-time home-buyers ($25,000 tax credit)

Protect social security and medicare

Protect seniors from scams

Needing a ceasefire deal for Palestine-Israel

Two state solution

Security in equal measure for both sides

Ensuring the U.S. has the most lethal fighting force in the world

A break from extraneous language, stating plain policy intentions. As stated in her closing statement, Harris is a candidate with the future in mind, seeking, generally, to help U.S. citizens. She unfortunately invokes politically ‘moderate’ stances such as her statements about Israel and military support, which should both be worded better. However, we can understand this within the context of a political system that would never permit someone rising to power while acknowledging the deep wrongs of the military and Israel. Overall, Harris is a far healthier candidate for the United States based on the principles claimed in this debate.

[beardedmrbean]

Japan joined a growing list of countries on Sunday to put a halt to providing funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for Palestine Refugees, citing concerns about allegations that staff members of the agency participated in the Oct. 7 terror attack on Israel.

Also putting a stop to the funding temporarily are the U.S., Germany, U.K., Canada and at least five other countries.Israel released evidence showing that a dozen of the organization's employees in Gaza participated in the massacre of 1,200 Israeli citizens by Hamas terrorists on Oct. 7, 2023."Against this backdrop, Japan is extremely concerned about the alleged involvement of UNRWA staff members in the terror attack on Israel on October 7 last year," Foreign Press Secretary Kobayashi Maki from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan said. "In response, Japan has decided to suspend additional funding to UNRWA for the time being while UNRWA conducts an investigation into the matter and considers measures to address the allegations."

BIDEN ADMIN CUTS FUNDING TO CONTROVERSIAL UN AGENCY AMID ALLEGATIONS MEMBERS ASSISTED IN HAMAS MASSACRE

Kobayashi said Japan has been "strongly urging" the UNRWA to investigate the matter in a prompt and complete way and take appropriate measures.

Specifically, Kobayashi said measures should include strengthening governance within UNRWA, so the agency can fulfill the role it is supposed to play.

"At the same time, Japan will continue to make persistent and active diplomatic efforts to improve the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip and to calm down the situation as soon as possible by providing support to other international organizations," Kobayashi added.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan announced it was suspending UNRWA funding on the same day that U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres called on member countries to resume funding for the agency, despite accusations from Israel that some of the group’s employees participated in the massacre last year.

Guterres said he understood the concerns leading to countries suspending funding to UNRWA, adding that he himself was horrified by the accusations. But he strongly appealed to those country’s governments to continue with funding for UNRWA’s operations.

"Of the 12 people implicated, nine were immediately identified and terminated by the Commissioner-General of UNRWA, Philippe Lazzarini; one is confirmed dead, and the identity of the two others is being clarified," he said. "Any UN employee involved in acts of terror will be held accountable, including through criminal prosecution."

Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations Gilad Erdan fired back at Guterres’ call for countries to renew their funding for UNRWA.

"The UN Secretary-General has proven once again that the security of the citizens of Israel is not really important for him," Erdan said. "After years in which he ignored the evidence presented to him personally about UNRWA's support and involvement in incitement and terrorism, and before he conducted a comprehensive investigation to locate all Hamas terrorists in UNRWA, he called to fund an organization that is deeply contaminated with terrorism."

Erdan said every country that continues to fund the agency before a comprehensive investigation can be conducted should be aware that the money may be used for terrorism.

He also said the aid transferred to UNRWA could reach Hamas terrorists instead of the people who need it in Gaza.

"I call on all donor states to suspend their support and demand an in-depth investigation that will investigate the involvement of all UNRWA employees in terror," the ambassador said.

[darkmaga-returns]

Israel launched Operation Rising Lion on June 13, 2025, in an attempt to stop Israel’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs to “roll back the Iranian threat for Israel’s survival.” Mossad intelligence agents penetrated Iranian facilities with small explosive drones. Simultaneously, 200 Israeli fighter jets carried out precision strikes on over 100 targets. Over 20 senior Iranian commanders and nine nuclear scientists were killed in the attack. Although several nuclear sites were severely damaged, the attack was not enough to disarm Iran.

As I explained in an earlier post, Israel claims it cannot remove Iran’s nuclear capabilities without US assistance. “We’re geared to do whatever is necessary to achieve our dual aim, to remove … two existential threats – the nuclear threat and the ballistic missile threat,” Netanyahu said in one of his first interviews since Israel’s attacks began. When asked whether a regime change was part of his strategy, Bibi replied, “Could certainly be the result because the Iran regime is very weak.”

Israel claimed it was under attack but did not submit a formal Article 51 to notify the United Nations Security Council. Why would they? No one respects the United Nations, and Bibi is wanted by the ICC as a war criminal. “We did act to save ourselves, but also, I think, to not only protect ourselves, but protect the world from this incendiary regime. We can’t have the world’s most dangerous regime have the world’s most dangerous weapons,” Bibi asserted.

Donald Trump maintains that he did not support Israel’s actions and has warned Iran not to attack the US or it will face the “full strength and might” of the US military. Iran could end Israel’s aggression by halting its nuclear program, Donald Trump insisted, but Iranian leaders said they would not negotiate while under attack.

[mariacallous]

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has always viewed the media as either his enemy or his servant. Over the years, he has had some successes in trying to turn it into the latter, but many more failures. Yet he’s never given up, even as some of his schemes have ended in criminal indictments. Netanyahu took the witness stand in his own trial on Dec. 10 to defend himself against the indictments, telling the court he isn’t bothered by negative media coverage.

But even as he faces jail time for some of these schemes, Netanyahu continues to try and tame the press. The government he leads includes an assortment of kowtowing loyalists, populists, and far rightists, none of whom have shown any great respect for democratic norms and nearly all share his disdain for the media. Given its gruesome origins in the Hamas massacre on Oct. 7, 2023, the fighting in Gaza and Lebanon has aroused nationalistic sentiments like no other war Israel has fought and has been exploited by those in power.

The Netanyahu government’s latest targets are the newspaper Haaretz and the public broadcaster Kan 11.

Haaretz, long detested by the right for its leftist politics and more recently for its critical reporting on the war, was placed under official sanction by Netanyahu’s ministerial cabinet on Nov. 24. That means that government bodies and state-owned companies are no longer allowed to advertise or “have contact with the Haaretz newspaper in any form.”

Officially, the measures were taken due to the war, and the “many editorials that have hurt the legitimacy of the state of Israel and its right to self-defense, and particularly the remarks made in London by Haaretz publisher, Amos Schocken, that support terrorism and call for imposing sanctions on the government.”

Schocken did speak of “Palestinian freedom fighters, that Israel calls terrorists” at a London conference in October, but he later clarified that he wasn’t referring to Hamas. The newspaper backtracked further in an editorial: “Even in his clarification, Schocken erred. The fact that he didn’t mean to include Hamas terrorists doesn’t mean that other terrorist acts are legitimate, even if their perpetrators’ goal is to free themselves from occupation.”

None of that would have helped because Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi has had Haaretz in his crosshairs for at least a year and was angling to act despite the measure’s dubious legality.

Karhi later put forth a bill that was portrayed as privatizing Kan 11 but in practice would simply kill it off. Approved by the Knesset in a preliminary vote at the end of November, the bill also says that if no private operator is found for Kan 11’s TV and radio services, then it will be shut down within two years and its archives and content rights will be transferred to the state.

“I’m working to expand freedom of expression and increase competition in the media market” was Karhi’s justification for the bill. But the reality is that Kan 11 would be disbanded, not privatized. And even the sale of its broadcast licenses is almost certainly destined to fail: Israel’s small media market (a population of around 9.8 million served by three major TV broadcasters and a handful of smaller ones) can’t support a fourth major competitor without the government assistance that Kan 11 enjoys.

The foreign press has not been exempt from government pressure. In October 2023, just weeks into Israel’s war with Hamas, the Israeli cabinet approved emergency regulations that allowed the government to temporarily shut down foreign media outlets deemed as national security threats. But as the war dragged on and the regulations were due to expire, the government won Knesset approval last April to make those powers into law.

The law allows the government to close foreign broadcasters operating in Israel and confiscate their equipment for as long as 90 days. Originally conceived as a temporary measure, the law has been extended twice, most recently in November, when it was extended until May 2025. The 90-day period was also expanded to as much as 120 days.

The legislation is popularly known as the Al Jazeera law, as it was clear to everyone who it was targeting. The Qatari government-owned outlet’s coverage does often portray Israel in a negative light, and it airs more graphic images of Palestinian suffering in Gaza than others.

Whether it constitutes a threat to national security is another issue. The defense establishment, which is required to issue an opinion, was far from unanimous. Nevertheless, the cabinet voted last May to ban Al Jazeera, and hours later the police seized equipment from its Jerusalem offices, while its TV broadcast and website were blocked inside Israel. Officials even tried to extend the ban to the Associated Press, whose gear was also seized briefly on the grounds that it had violated the law by providing images of Gaza to Al Jazeera. Karhi backed down under U.S. pressure.

Netanyahu’s distaste for independent media seems to be less about any authoritarian tendencies than about a thin skin and an inflated view of his importance as Israel’s leader and his place in history. He seems to think that a leader of his unique stature should be honored by journalists, not hounded by them. All of this is exacerbated by a dark view of a world he sees as divided into friends and enemies. There are no neutral parties. Thus, Netanyahu rarely holds press conferences or gives interviews to local media.

In Israel’s 1999 election, Netanyahu famously slammed the media coverage he was getting, saying, “They are afraid.” He lost that election and blamed it on a hostile media. “I need my own media,” he reportedly told associates afterward.

To a degree, that is what he got. The first was the free daily newspaper Israel Hayom, which was launched in 2007 and soon became Israel’s most widely circulated newspaper thanks to generous subsidies by its owner, the late U.S. billionaire Sheldon Adelson. It accomplished two things for Netanyahu: providing seamlessly fawning coverage of the prime minister and (just as importantly) his wife, Sara, and cutting into the revenues of its rivals such as Yedioth Aharonot.

Netanyahu’s second success was the TV broadcaster 14 Now, also known as Channel 14. Launched a decade ago as a minor-league broadcaster with programming for the religious community, it was allowed to transform itself into a news channel offering wall-to-wall Netanyahu-friendly coverage while peddling conspiracy theories and incendiary content. Its editorial line parallels Netanyahu to the point that his policy changes often surface in its broadcasts before the prime minister himself articulates them.

Netanyahu has worked hard to keep both media properties alive and kicking. It is widely believed that he brought down his own government in 2015 to block a Knesset bill that would have banned the distribution of full-size freebie newspapers like Israel Hayom. Channel 14 has been showered with regulatory benefits that others are denied, which have helped stem its losses. Today, its news broadcast has the second-highest ratings among the networks.

Netanyahu has tried to do more to establish a grip on the media, but it has come to naught. He got another U.S. billionaire, Ronald Lauder, to invest in Israel’s now-defunct Channel 10, but it never resulted in the worshipful coverage he hoped for. Other efforts ended in criminal indictments—the first for allegedly trying to reach a deal with Yedioth Aharonot publisher Noni Mozes to swap friendly coverage for legislation curbing Israel Hayom and the second for allegedly trading regulatory benefits to the telecoms company Bezeq in exchange for friendly coverage on its Walla news site.

Appearing in court on Tuesday in connection with those indictments, Netanyahu said he was only trying to correct an imbalance in which most Israeli journalists identified with leftist politics. “I constantly tried to bring new [people] so that there would be diversity, to convince people to come and invest, and occasionally tried to convince people to diversify within their own media outlets,” he said.

The prime minister’s vanity-based war on the press has found allies like never before in the current government. While Karhi is the chief one, he only represents the sharp edge of an authoritarian and anti-establishment streak that runs through the coalition.

The government spent most of its first year in power failing to legislate a package of measures designed to undercut and politicize the judicial system and rule of law. Israel’s war with Hamas put that project into abeyance, but recently Justice Minister Yariv Levin has talked about reviving it. Meanwhile, a host of other anti-democratic bills are making their way through the Knesset.

A decline in the media’s image over the past decade has made it vulnerable to official hostility. A 2023 survey found that around 24 percent of Israeli respondents expressed trust in the media, half the rate in 2011. Like everywhere in the world, traditional media’s power to influence public opinion has been weakened by social media. Netanyahu has an apparently organized contingent of online loyalists, known by its critics as the “poison machine,” to laud him and attack his enemies.

Israel’s war with Hamas has played a role, as well. Netanyahu has certainly not escaped criticism for his war conduct, but the trauma of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack and the fate of the hostages has made the public more receptive than in past wars when leaders accused the media of being insufficiently patriotic. “We advocate a free press and freedom of expression, but also the freedom of the government to decide not to fund incitement against the state of Israel,” said Karhi about the Haaretz ban.

On the surface, it seems as if Netanyahu and company are following the playbook of Hungarian leader Viktor Orban. Since returning to power in 2010, Orban’s government has overhauled Hungary’s media law and staffed media regulators with loyalists. Public broadcast journalists were replaced with government mouthpieces. In 2018, a foundation close to Orban took control of around 500 media outlets across the country.

If Netanyahu and his cohorts aspire to something similar, they are likely to face popular resistance, as they did when they unveiled their judicial overhaul in 2023. The Israeli ethos is argumentative and undisciplined, and freedom of expression is deeply ingrained. The Al Jazeera ban is unlikely to survive the war. The Haaretz sanctions will likely have little financial impact on the newspaper even if the measures aren’t struck down by the courts. Analysts say the Kan 11 privatization will probably never win Knesset approval.

The Israeli government’s strategy, if there is one, seems less about seizing control of the media than about intimidating it. However, that could change. If Levin gets his judicial overhaul, the courts would be helpless to defend independence of the press. Unlike U.S. President Joe Biden, President-elect Donald Trump cannot be counted on to deter Netanyahu when his government undertakes anti-democratic policies. For the Israeli media, the chill is on, and it may well grow colder.

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

by Ted Cruz

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released the following statement regarding the announcement of a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah:

“Our Israeli allies have accomplished enormous military successes over the last year against the Iranian-controlled terrorist group Hezbollah, killing thousands of Hezbollah terrorists, eliminating Hezbollah's entire command, and dismantling its infrastructure across Lebanon. These actions have directly contributed to vital American national security interests, including directly by liquidating terrorist leaders who had the blood of hundreds of Americans on their hands. Indeed, the U.S.-Israel relationship is at the core of U.S. interests in the Middle East, and American policy should be to provide unequivocal military and diplomatic support to our Israeli allies to fully ensure their security.

“However, the Biden administration has spent the last four years pathologically obsessed with undermining Israel and boosting Iran, including by coercing our Israeli allies to cede maritime territory to Hezbollah. They are now using the transition period to the Trump administration and a Republican Congress to try to lock in those efforts - and to constrain the incoming administration - by establishing what they believe to be irreversible diplomatic, legal, and military policies. However, these and similar international policies are not irreversible. This month, I led a letter co-signed by 10 other Senators saying that the U.S. will fundamentally reevaluate our relationship with the U.N. and the Palestinians if Palestinian President Abbas fulfills a pledge he made to secure Israel's expulsion from the U.N. General Assembly. Last week, I joined my colleagues in vowing to act against the International Criminal Court for undermining American and Israeli interests by issuing arrest warrants for Israeli leaders, and said everyone involved in the decision should face American sanctions.

“I am deeply disturbed both by reports that Obama-Biden officials exerted enormous pressure on our Israeli allies to accept this ceasefire and by how those officials are characterizing Israel's obligations. This pressure and these statements are further efforts to undermine Israel and constrain the incoming Trump administration. Obama-Biden officials pressured our Israeli allies into accepting the ceasefire by withholding weapons they needed to defend themselves and counter Hezbollah, and by threatening to facilitate a further, broader, binding international arms embargo through the United Nations. Obama-Biden officials are already trying to use Israel's acceptance of this ceasefire to ensure that Hezbollah and other Iranian terrorist groups remain intact across Lebanon, and to limit Israel's future freedom of action and self-defense. Administration officials, including Secretary of State Blinken, today even downplayed Israel's right under the ceasefire to strike terrorist groups in Lebanon when those groups pose imminent threats.

“These constraints have been rejected by our Israeli allies. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that under the ceasefire Israel retains full freedom of action to counter Hezbollah if the group attacks Israel or tries to rebuild its terrorist infrastructure. The United States should allow and assist Israel in doing so, and I am committed to working closely with the Trump administration and my colleagues in the incoming Congress to ensure they are able to so.”