DAVID MARCUS: Democrats, media betray Israel, but look who stands firm
If not for the fortitude of President Donald Trump, his GOP allies, and a handful of stalwart Democrats, this plan would have worked already. But now, just as Israel looks to finish Hamas, the useful idiots are making one last anti-Israel push.
On the Pod Save America podcast, which we are given to understand represents the mainstream Democrat Party, the hosts this week called to cut off military aid to Israel, sanction Israeli leaders, and finally said, "When the war ends, we are not going back to the pre-October 7 status quo."
Hamas couldn't move literal pawns around an actual chessboard with such ease.
And why do we see this growing betrayal of our greatest ally in the region? It is because Israel is allegedly starving Gazans, as depicted by the front page of The New York Times, which showed an image of a child supposedly showing the effects of malnutrition.
The problem is that The New York Times was lied to, the child in question suffered from a pre-existing condition, and his healthy brother was cropped from the picture. The Grey Lady has now issued a sort-of correction, but let's be honest, the damage was done.
Meanwhile, in Europe, both France and the United Kingdom are now threatening to recognize a Palestinian state, which one imagines means recognizing Hamas as its rightful government, which is exactly what the terrorists hoped their barbarism would achieve.
It's amazing: Europe is like Hamas' bullpen. Whenever Israel starts winning, they get some country up throwing.
In the face of so much fecklessness from the West on Israel, Trump and his Republican Party continue to stand like a lighthouse of liberty and freedom in a dark storm of moral relativism.
On Tuesday, Trump addressed the possibility of a Palestinian state and quite sensibly said, "You could make the case that you're rewarding people, that you're rewarding Hamas if you do that. I don't think they should be rewarded. I'm not in that camp, to be honest."
Trump's point here is obviously true. If the result of massacring Jews is that Palestinians get a state, then clearly Oct. 7 was a success and will be repeated over and over regardless of how many innocents die.
When Palestinian mothers hold up their babies and pray one day they will be martyrs, that isn't a PR stunt, they mean it. The more that this evil is coddled by cowards in the West, the longer death and destruction will reign.
This sudden moral panic over Israel also comes at a time when Trump has the region as close to possible peace as it has ever been.
The Abraham Accords have eased regional tensions outside of Gaza, the attack on Iran has weakened the Middle East's greatest threat to peace, more and more countries are open to recognizing Israel. Yet western liberals seem hellbent on fomenting anger in the Arab street.
It seems that every time Trump's negotiators, such as Howard Lutnick, get close to a deal in Gaza, the west's useful idiots start throwing Hamas rhetorical lifelines that only serve to prolong the bloody conflict.
There is no question that horrible suffering is happening in Gaza. Trump has not only acknowledged this, but worked, within reason, to urge Israel to allow more supplies in. But without the release of the hostages and surrender of Hamas, Israel cannot stand down.
It is frankly baffling that so many on the left in the West want to prolong the status quo in the Middle East, to make sure both sides have just enough support that the fighting never ends, and yet, what other result can this appeasement have?
Trump understands something I learned talking to people in Israel last year: They are not going to end this war and just wait to be attacked again. Those days are over, they are not coming back.
With the support, and even sometimes guidance, of Trump, Israel will finish this fight, and when it does, it will be Trump's vision of a new Middle East that triumphs, not the Left's perverse desire to keep the conflict going forever.
For that, we should all be thankful.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
2 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Modi Defiant as Trump Steps Up Pressure on India
US President Donald Trump has said he would be 'substantially raising' the tariff on Indian exports to the US over the Asian nation's purchases of Russian oil, a move New Delhi slammed as unjustified in an escalating fight between the two major economies. Bloomberg's Jon Herskovitz explains why Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has struck a defiant tone in the face of Trump's tariff threats. (Source: Bloomberg)
New York Times
8 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: NASA Plans Nuclear Reactor on Moon
Harvard officials have been sensitive to the possibility that a deal with the government would be seen as surrendering to the president and offering him a political gift. By the start of last week, Harvard University had signaled its readiness to meet President Trump's demand that it spend $500 million to settle its damaging, monthslong battle with the administration and restore its critical research funding. Then, two days after The New York Times reported that Harvard was open to such a financial commitment, the White House announced a far cheaper deal with Brown University: $50 million, doled out over a decade, to bolster state work force development programs. The terms stunned officials at Harvard, who marveled that another Ivy League school got away with paying so little, according to three people familiar with the deliberations. But Harvard officials also bristled over how their university, after months of work to address antisemitism on campus and with a seeming advantage in its court fight against the government, was facing a demand from Mr. Trump to pay 10 times more. The people who discussed the deliberations spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing talks that are supposed to remain confidential. White House officials are dismissive of the comparison between Brown and Harvard, arguing that their grievances against Harvard are more far-reaching, including assertions that the school has yet to do enough to ensure the safety of Jewish students and their claim that the school is flouting the Supreme Court's ruling on race-conscious admissions. 'If Harvard wants the Brown deal, then it has to be like Brown, and I just think it's not,' May Mailman, the top White House official under Stephen Miller who has served as the architect of the administration's crusade against top schools, said in an interview in the West Wing last week. Ms. Mailman, who graduated from Harvard Law School, pointed out that Brown, unlike Harvard, did not sue the administration. She challenged Harvard to reach an agreement that included terms that would allow the government to more closely scrutinize its behavior. 'If Harvard feels really good about what it's already doing, then great,' she said. 'Let's sign this deal tomorrow.' Harvard said on Monday that it had no comment. But the White House's recent record of deal-making threatens to complicate the settlement talks, according to the people familiar with the talks. University officials were already sensitive to the possibility that a deal with the government — after Harvard spent months waging a public fight against Mr. Trump — would be seen as surrendering to the president and offering him a political gift. The terms of the Brown agreement, though, added new complexity to Harvard's internal debates about the size of a potential financial settlement. For many people close to those discussions, spending $500 million is less of a concern than what forking that money over would signal on the Cambridge, Mass., campus and beyond. For those close to the discussions, Mr. Trump's demand is far too large and they argue that acquiescing to it would be seen as the university scrambling to buy its way out of Mr. Trump's ire. They contend that Harvard has taken far more aggressive steps than Columbia University — which agreed to a $200 million fine last month — to combat antisemitism. They also note that Harvard, unlike Brown, did not publicly agree to consider divesting from Israel as a condition of ending campus protests last year. (Brown's board ultimately voted not to divest.) Others at Harvard regard Mr. Trump's proposal as a bargain for the school to get back billions of dollars in funding that make much of its society-shaping research possible. Before the Brown deal, Harvard leaders and the school's sprawling team were studying settlement structures that could insulate the nation's oldest and wealthiest university from accusations that it caved to Mr. Trump. In their stop-and-start talks with the White House, they are expected to maintain their insistence on steps to shield the university's academic freedom. To that end, they are also likely to remain equally resistant to a monitoring arrangement that some fear would invite intrusions and stifle the school's autonomy. But Harvard has been exploring a structure in which any money the university agrees to spend will go to vocational and work force training programs instead of the federal government, Mr. Trump, his presidential library or allies, according to the three people briefed on the matter. Harvard officials believe that such an arrangement would allow them to argue to their students, faculty, alumni and others in academia that the funds would not be used to fill Mr. Trump's coffers. Harvard's consideration of putting money toward work force programs aligns with some of what Mr. Trump himself has espoused. In a social media post in May, the president talked up the prospect of taking $3 billion from Harvard and 'giving it to TRADE SCHOOLS all across our land. What a great investment that would be for the USA, and so badly needed!!!' But no matter the structure, White House officials have made clear that an extraordinary sum will be required to reach a settlement. Last week, after The Times reported the $500 million figure, a journalist asked Mr. Trump whether that amount would be enough to reach a deal. 'Well, it's a lot of money,' he replied. 'We're negotiating with Harvard.' Although Brown and Harvard are among the nation's richest and most prominent universities, the schools have significant differences, especially around their finances. The Trump administration has repeatedly castigated Harvard for its $53 billion endowment, which is loaded with restrictions that limit how it may be used, but it has made far less fuss about Brown's similarly tied-up $7 billion fund. Harvard also has much more federal research money at stake. The Trump administration has warned that it could ultimately strip $9 billion in funding for Harvard; it threatened $510 million in funding for Brown. One reason the Brown deal has so miffed Harvard officials is that some terms look much like those they expected for themselves. The government agreed, for instance, that it could not use the deal 'to dictate Brown's curriculum or the content of academic speech.' Brown avoided a monitoring arrangement, and the university won the right to direct its $50 million settlement payment toward work force programs of its choosing. But Harvard has a more antagonistic relationship with the Trump administration, as the university has sued the administration to stop its retribution campaign against the school. That dynamic has fueled worries at Harvard that the White House is seeking a far higher financial penalty as a punishment for fighting, not because the school's troubles alone warrant $500 million. After Harvard refused a list of Trump administration demands in April, the university sued. Last month, a federal judge in Boston appeared skeptical of the government's tactics when it blocked billions in research funding from Harvard. Before and after the July 21 hearing, the administration pursued a wide-ranging campaign against the university. In addition to its attack on Harvard's research money, the government has opened investigations, sought to block the school from enrolling international students, demanded thousands of documents and tried to challenge the university's accreditation, which is essential for students to be eligible for federal student aid programs, such as Pell Grants. Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services told Harvard that it had referred the university to the Justice Department 'to initiate appropriate proceedings to address Harvard's antisemitic discrimination.' 'Rather than voluntarily comply with its obligations under Title VI, Harvard has chosen scorched-earth litigation against the federal government,' Paula M. Stannard, the director of the health department's Office for Civil Rights, wrote on Thursday, referring to the section of federal civil rights law that bars discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin. 'The parties' several months' engagement has been fruitless.' As Harvard's president, Alan M. Garber, and other university leaders face the White House's fury, they are also confronting campus-level misgivings about a potential deal with a president many at the school see as bent on authoritarianism. At best, many at Harvard view him as duplicitous and believe it would be risky for the university to enter a long-term arrangement. 'I think even the simplest deals with untrustworthy people can be challenging,' said Oliver Hart, an economics professor at Harvard who won a Nobel Prize for his work on contract theory. 'But a continuing relationship is much, much worse, much harder.' Dr. Hart warned that, no matter the written terms of a settlement, the federal government would retain enormous power with effectively limitless financial resources to take on Harvard. Such dynamics, he said, are 'not uppermost in their minds in most commercial transactions.' But, he added, 'I don't think a university can be confident about that with the Trump administration.' Ms. Mailman, who recently left the full-time White House staff but remains involved in the administration's higher-education strategy, all but dared Harvard to stay defiant. 'I think there's still a deal to be had, but from our perspective, at the end of the day, Harvard has a $53 billion endowment,' she said. 'They don't need federal funds. And even if they win a lawsuit, great. But what happens next year? What happens the year after?'
Washington Post
11 minutes ago
- Washington Post
France and Saudis vow to keep up momentum for 'two-state solution' to Israel-Palestinian conflict
UNITED NATIONS — After decades of inaction and frozen negotiations, the issue of an independent Palestinian state living in peace with Israel returned to the spotlight at a high-level U.N. conference — and France and Saudi Arabia, which spearheaded the effort, are determined to keep up the momentum. But hurdles for a two-state solution that would see Israel living side-by-side with an independent Palestine are very high. War in Gaza — a crucial part of a hoped-for Palestinian state — drags on with escalating violence in the West Bank, the other main component. And Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing government vehemently oppose an independent Palestinian state, which the Israeli leader says would be a reward for terrorism after Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, attacks against his country. Nonetheless, after eight decades of conflict between Israel and Palestinians, pressure is growing for a two-state solution, as last week's high-level U.N. conference co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia demonstrated — even if it was boycotted by Israel and its close ally, the United States. The French U.N. ambassador, Jerome Bonnafont, conceded in an Associated Press interview that without a Gaza ceasefire and massive humanitarian aid for over 2 million Palestinians sliding toward famine, 'it will be extremely difficult to move forward to define a new way of administering Gaza as part of Palestine' – and he said these are priority issues. But the conference demonstrated that a majority of the U.N.'s 193 member nations are 'convinced that there is a possibility of a political solution,' he said, and that is 'what its follow-up will continue to promote.' About 160 of the U.N.'s 193 member nations participated, 125 spoke in support of a two-state solution (forcing the meeting into an unexpected third day), and between 40 and 50 were represented by a government minister. An independent state of Palestine is recognized by over 145 countries, and the meeting sparked new pledges of recognition by three of the seven members of the powerful Group of Seven — France, United Kingdom and Canada — as well as Malta. A statement by seven others, including Australia, New Zealand, Finland and Portugal, expressed 'positive consideration' of following suit. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farham are determined not to let the spotlight fade. They are planning 'an event' during the annual gathering of world leaders at the General Assembly, which starts Sept. 23, when the new pledges are expected to be officially announced. The conference was notable for being co-chaired by an Arab and Western nation, and for setting up eight working groups with diverse chairs to make proposals on key issues for a two state solution — security for Israel and an independent Palestine, political reforms, legal problems, humanitarian assistance, economic development and Gaza reconstruction, to name some. The result was a seven-page 'New York Declaration.' The French and Saudi foreign ministers sent the declaration, with a lengthy annex of recommendations from the working groups, to all 193 U.N. members and asked them to endorse it by early September, before the world leaders' gathering. The declaration, which also was endorsed by the European Union and Arab League, urges Israel to commit to a Palestinian state, and urges further recognitions as 'an essential and indispensable component of the achievement of the two-state solution.' For the first time, the Arab League's 22 member nations condemned 'the attacks committed by Hamas against civilians' in southern Israel on Oct. 7, and agree that 'Hamas must end its rule in Gaza and hand over its weapons to the Palestinian Authority.' It sets out a plan to then move to an independent, demilitarized Palestine, including deployment of a U.N. Security Council-mandated 'temporary international stabilization mission' supported by the Palestinian Authority. It would protect civilians, help build support for a Palestinian state and its security forces, and provide 'security guarantees for Palestine and Israel.' Richard Gowan, the International Crisis Group's U.N. director, gave French President Emmanuel Macron credit 'for raising the level of ambition for the conference,' and helping make it 'more symbolically significant than many diplomats expected.' The meeting gave weighty states including France, Britain and Canada the opportunity 'to signal their discontent with Israeli policy,' he said, and it gave Palestinians seeking a peaceful road to statehood 'some political ammunition.' Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, who hosted a Hamas delegation in Istanbul last week to discuss Gaza's humanitarian crisis and stalled ceasefire talks, noted growing global support for the Palestinians and a Palestinian state — and Israel's increasing isolation. Bonnafont, the French ambassador, had messages for Israel's opponents and Israelis seeking more territory. 'We say to those who are hostile to Israel, the way to peace is certainly not to deny the right of existence to Israel. This is the way to perpetual war,' Bonnafont said. 'And the real way to defend the Palestinians is to give them a state, and the only way to give them a state is a two-state solution — and we have demonstrated concretely that this solution exists and is feasible.'
