Category: Uncategorized

The two leaders also discussed military and intelligence cooperation, and artificial intelligence.

By JNS

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke about Iran “at length” on June 8.

Netanyahu “reiterated his consistent position that returning to the nuclear agreement with Iran would not stop the Iranian nuclear program and that no arrangement with Iran will obligate Israel, which will do everything to defend itself,” according to a readout from the prime minister’s office.

The Israeli leader also expressed appreciation for the U.S.-Israeli military and intelligence cooperation, “which is at an all-time peak,” and for recent “sincere talks” between the two countries.

Netanyahu “suggested advancing Israeli-American cooperation on artificial intelligence,” and the two discussed “the challenges and opportunities in the region,” per the readout.

U.S. State Department spokesman Matthew Miller later stated that the two leaders “discussed areas of mutual interest, including expanding and deepening Israel’s integration into the Middle East through normalization with countries in the region.”

Blinken “discussed the need to uphold the commitments made at regional meetings in Aqaba and Sharm el-Sheikh to avoid measures that undermine the prospects for a two-state solution,” Miller added. “He also discussed broader regional challenges, such as the threat posed by Iran, and underscored the United States’ ironclad commitment to Israel’s security and our 75-year-old partnership.”

The post Iran arrangement would not obligate Israel, Netanyahu tells Blinken appeared first on World Israel News.

“This is election interference at the highest level,” says Trump after historic decision by Department of Justice to indict former president over classified documents.

By The Associated Press

Former President Donald Trump has been indicted on charges of mishandling classified documents at his Florida estate, a remarkable development that makes him the first former president in U.S. history to face criminal charges by the federal government that he once oversaw.

The Justice Department was expected to make public a seven-count indictment ahead of a historic court appearance next week in the midst of a 2024 presidential campaign punctuated by criminal prosecutions in multiple states.

The indictment carries unmistakably grave legal consequences, including the possibility of prison if Trump’s convicted.

But it also has enormous political implications, potentially upending a Republican presidential primary that Trump had been dominating and testing anew the willingness of GOP voters and party leaders to stick with a now twice-indicted candidate who could face still more charges.

The Justice Department did not immediately confirm the indictment publicly. But two people familiar with the situation who were not authorized to discuss it publicly said that the indictment included seven criminal counts. One of those people said Trump’s lawyers were contacted by prosecutors shortly before he announced Thursday on his Truth Social platform that he had been indicted.

Within minutes of his announcement, Trump, who said he was due in court Tuesday afternoon in Miami, began fundraising off it for his presidential campaign. He declared his innocence in a video and repeated his familiar refrain that the investigation is a “witch hunt.”

Speaking with Fox News Thursday night, Trump accused the Biden administration Department of Justice of “election interference at the highest level,” and called the Biden White House “the most corrupt” administration in American history.

“They are trying to deflect all of their dishonesty by bringing this ridiculous boxes hoax case.”

“They’re not going to get away with it.”

Trump denied any wrongdoing, citing the Presidential Records Act, which he said “makes me totally innocent.”

The case adds to deepening legal jeopardy for Trump, who has already been indicted in New York and faces additional investigations in Washington and Atlanta that also could lead to criminal charges. But among the various investigations he faces, legal experts — as well as Trump’s own aides — had long seen the Mar-a-Lago probe as the most perilous threat and the one most ripe for prosecution. Campaign aides had been bracing for the fallout since Trump’s attorneys were notified that he was the target of the investigation, assuming it was not a matter of if charges would be brought, but when.

Appearing Thursday night on CNN, Trump attorney James Trusty said the indictment includes charges of willful retention of national defense information — a crime under the Espionage Act, which polices the handling of government secrets — obstruction, false statements and conspiracy.

The indictment arises from a monthslong investigation into whether Trump broke the law by holding onto hundreds of documents marked classified at his Palm Beach property, Mar-a-Lago, and whether Trump took steps to obstruct the government’s efforts to recover the records.

Prosecutors have said that Trump took roughly 300 classified documents to Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House, including some 100 that were seized by the FBI last August in a search of the home that underscored the gravity of the Justice Department’s investigation. Trump has repeatedly insisted that he was entitled to keep the classified documents when he left the White House, and has also claimed without evidence that he had declassified them.

Court records unsealed last year showed federal investigators believed they had probable cause that multiple crimes had been committed, including the retention of national defense information, destruction of government records and obstruction.

Since then, the Justice Department has amassed additional evidence and secured grand jury testimony from people close to Trump, including his own lawyers. The statutes governing the handling of classified records and obstruction are felonies that could carry years in prison in the event of a conviction.

Signs had mounted for weeks that an indictment was near, including a Monday meeting between Trump’s lawyers and Justice Department officials. His lawyers had also recently been notified that he was the target of the investigation, the clearest sign yet that an indictment was looming.

The Justice Department has said Trump repeatedly resisted efforts by the National Archives and Records Administration to get the documents back. After months of back-and-forth, Trump representatives returned 15 boxes of records in January 2022, including about 184 documents that officials said had classified markings on them.

FBI and Justice Department investigators issued a subpoena in May 2022 for classified documents that remained in Trump’s possession. But after a Trump lawyer provided three dozen records and asserted that a diligent search of the property had been done, officials came to suspect even more documents remained.

The investigation had simmered for months before bursting into front-page news in remarkable fashion last August. That’s when FBI agents served a search warrant on Mar-a-Lago and removed 33 boxes containing classified records, including top-secret documents stashed in a storage room and desk drawer and commingled with personal belongings. Some records were so sensitive that investigators needed upgraded security clearances to review them, the Justice Department has said.

The investigation into Trump had appeared complicated — politically, if not legally — by the discovery of documents with classified markings in the Delaware home and former Washington office of President Joe Biden, as well as in the Indiana home of former Vice President Mike Pence. The Justice Department recently informed Pence that he would not face charges, while a second special counsel continues to investigate Biden’s handling of classified documents.

The post Trump indicted in classified documents case appeared first on World Israel News.

Post Content

Post Content

Less than two weeks before the 2016 Iowa GOP presidential caucus, then-candidate Donald Trump attempted to solidify his Christian bona fides during a speech at Liberty University. Trump declared, “We’re going to protect Christianity…. Two Corinthians, 3:17, that’s the whole ballgame…is that the one you like?”

Though he would eventually garner overwhelming support from America’s conservative Christian voters, the usually self-assured candidate appeared somewhat out of his comfort zone. The awkward phrasing aside, the follow-up question – “is that the one you like?” – revealed almost explicitly that the campaign would appropriate language that did not come naturally to the candidate.

Seven years after Trump’s speech at Liberty University, what are we to make of the intermingling of religion and populism? Enter Tobias Cremer’s The Godless Crusade: Religion, Populism, and Right-Wing Identity Politics in the West, which evaluates this question on four interrelated arguments using Germany, France, and the United States as case studies.

First, Cremer argues that right-wing populist movements emerge in response to new social cleavages. Traditional social divisions around class and religion have given way to an identity-based divide between cosmopolitans and localists. As Cremer writes, “many voters are beginning to think…more in terms of a new contest over the status of ethnocultural, racial and civilizational identities of majority populations in the West.” A number of factors have contributed to this new split in Western societies, including secularization, globalization, and immigration.

Second, amid the rise of right-wing populism, Cremer argues that religious identity is turning into a cultural, rather than religious, concept. The secularization of religious identity creates a useful tool for right-wing populists who “use Christian symbols and language as cultural identity markers, while often remaining distanced from Christian doctrine, ethics and institutions.”

In addition, right-wing populists leverage religious language to imbue a spiritual significance to things associated with the nation – territory becomes a “sacred homeland” and immigrants become “dangerous others.”

Third, Cremer argues that right-wing populist rhetoric is usually most successfully making inroads among non-religious voters or non-practicing Christians for whom Christianity can be more of a cultural marker. Religious practice, on the other hand, has tended to correlate with a relative “immunity” to populism. Germany’s right-wing populist Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party, for example, performed much better among non-religious voters in elections between 2014 and 2021. Cremer also notes that, despite later success, Trump’s early support in the 2016 GOP primary was strongest among the religiously unaffiliated.

Fourth, and closely related, the ability of right-wing populists to overcome the relative immunity correlated with religious practice depends “on the availability of a ‘Christian alternative’ in the political landscape and…on churches’ and faith leaders’ willingness and ability to publicly denounce the populist right and create a social taboo around them.”

In Germany, the populist right has been held in check because Christian voters have long found a home in mainstream parties and the major churches have been vocal in condemning the AfD’s appropriation of religion. In France, however, the center-right political bloc has eroded, with French politics divided between President Macron’s center-left movement and the far-right represented by Marine Le Pen and Eric Zemmour. Forced to choose between the two primary options, many practicing Christians have chosen the right-wing populist parties. Moreover, Cremer observes that Catholic bishops have softened their rhetoric toward the far right.

In the United States, meanwhile, Cremer observes that globalization, immigration, and other factors fostered an identity crisis and malaise in a large section of the population. Trump took advantage and, in doing so, transformed the Republican Party into a more identitarian – rather than faith-driven – political entity. Absent any political alternative, and with faith leaders not cultivating a taboo against right-wing populism, immunity to right-wing populism has diminished among practicing Christians.

Cremer’s book is a rigorous analysis of the interplay between religion and right-wing populism and a necessary read for understanding the politics of the past decade. But what are its implications for the future, particularly the United States?

The democratized and decentralized character of American Christianity renders it difficult for a voice or small group of voices to speak on its behalf and cultivate social taboos that apply to politics. If trust in institutions continues to decline, alongside secularization, the prospects for a definitive Christian witness vis-à-vis populism, akin to what Cremer argues has happened in Germany, seems unlikely.

The book also offers a cautionary lesson for American Christians moving forward. The transformation of Christianity into a cultural concept in the West has facilitated its subordination into a prop in the service of nationalistic populism. But what is the end that Christians seek? Is it the kingdom of God? Or the expansion of their own power under the pretense of sacralizing a nation? The intermingling of Christianity and nationalism risks reducing the potency of the Gospel message by making the former a cover for the latter.

The post “Two Corinthians” – Religious Populism in the West appeared first on Providence.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article …

The post Lie, Cheat, and Steal: The CIA’s Disastrous Scientific Legacy appeared first on Global Research.

Arms industries across Europe and North America are trying to get credentialed as “ESG”-friendly options for environmentally and socially conscious investors. That’s absurd. As long as their products are used to perpetuate war, they will remain sin stocks.

M1A2 Abrams tanks in Nowa Deba, Poland, on April 12 2023. (Artur Widak / NurPhoto / Getty Images)

Military sectors are ramping up efforts to “green” warfare. To support the rebranding of the military as a “driver of climate action,” arms industries from Europe to North America are demanding recognition as ESG-friendly sustainable investment options. That is: environmentally and socially responsible businesses. Arms industries bring security, we are told. And security is a precondition for “any sustainability.”

What hides in this statement? What is lost as we allow military actors to monopolize the meaning of a sustainable future? Unless we want to see the real definitions of both security and sustainable practices silenced — those needed to actually address climate and social crises — military investments must remain “sin stocks.”

Monetizing and Militarizing Sustainability

We live in a time of compounding environmental and social crises, from climate change to armed conflict to systemic human rights violations. As a result, financial investments in arms — the means of death and destruction exacerbating such crises — have acquired an increasingly bad aftertaste for investors with a concern for environmental and social sustainability. At present, this trend is facing a dangerous U-turn as weapons lobbies are putting minds, money, and manpower to co-opting sustainability in theory and practice.

This is made painfully clear by the AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe, who define military security as intrinsic to sustainability. “Security is the precondition for any sustainability,” they write. Through “helping to ensure security,” the argument then goes, the European arms industry “de facto makes a vital contribution to a more sustainable world.”

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has given this narrative wings. One month into the war, Swedish bank SEB backtracked on its celebrated blanket ban against weapons investments to include parts of the arms industry in their brand-new sustainable investment policy. Similarly, in March 2022, Citibank noted that “We believe defence is likely to be increasingly seen as a necessity that facilitates ESG as an enterprise, as well as maintaining peace, stability and other social goods” — foreboding the growing acceptance of military sectors’ “ESG credentials.” The signal rings clear: with the return of total war to Europe, investing in arms and dual-use systems is our only hope to protect democracy and so achieve sustainability.

What we are witnessing is a concerted effort across European and North American state, finance, and military sectors to cement the link between the arms industry and sustainability, through naturalizing military security as intrinsically linked to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Particularly Goal 16: “Peace, justice and strong institutions.” So far so good — that is, in a world where militarized forms of security are so normalized that we accept the arms industry’s usage of the terms at face value. Few stop to ask, what kind of security is invoked here? Unless we ask this, we will fail to apprehend what kind of sustainability military industries can guarantee.

Security and Sustainability for Whom, at What Cost?

What security arms producers stand as gatekeepers to is well captured by the industry’s propensity for secrecy and corruption or its habit of profiting from war crimes and social unrest. Dictatorships pay as well as democracies, and importing states are all the same to Euro-American arms suppliers, especially if they are engaged in active conflicts. Well, as long as the buyer regime is militarily involved in countries of less strategic and symbolic value to the “West” — like Saudi Arabia in Yemen or Israel in Palestine. As for Russia in Ukraine, this logic was easily flipped on its head with profitable consequences for Euro-American arms dealers. Russia’s war against the “free world” has instead instigated “a new era for the defense industry” — the era in which Euro-American arms can be classified as socially responsible goods as they “defend” that world.

The coupling of military security with sustainability is buttressed by another myth that sustains the industry: that arms exports are guarantors of peace. What peace, one might ask? The peace associated with eight years of humanitarian disaster in Yemen, generated by a war armed by Euro-American companies? The peace associated with political repression and police violence among the world’s worst human rights abusing states, propped up by Euro-American surveillance and population control equipment? The peace associated with the exacerbation of armed conflict from the uncontrollable proliferation of Euro-American arms across war-torn regions throughout MENA and the Sahel? Arms seldom stay where they were intended to go.

The military sector is wired toward maintaining control — read: securing an unjust status quo — and reacting to symptoms rather than addressing root causes behind conflict. This predisposes the sector’s understanding of sustainability as one that serves the interests of those with power and resources to the detriment of those without.

Yet, in today’s society, the military’s voice is institutionally prioritized. It carries a veneer of rationality and objectivity that only the military can muster, in a world where militarism has become so commonplace that we do not react to subways featuring adverts for fighter jets while prohibiting those that raise voices for peace. A world where schoolkids go without lunch or nurses are denied adequate pay rises after carrying a whole nation through a pandemic, while the military sector receives billions in budget bumps on a yearly basis.

Will wasting more money on arms make us safer in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis? Will the production and export of these arms pave the way for practices that protect the environment? Any claim to sustainability made by military actors is destined to be reactive and superficial, not preventative and profound.

Saving Power and Profit Over People and Planet

Like with all arms industry politics, the paradoxes are ripe. While military contractors are touting their sustainability horn, they are also lobbying their governments to be exempted from novel EU legislation mandating companies to respect human rights and the environment. As some of the EU’s largest arms exporting governments support this exemption plea, the European arms industry is given the go-ahead to prioritize profit over people and planet. This is telling of how serious the industry really is about stepping in as the guarantors of a sustainable future, beyond their conscientious hyperbole.

In 2022, we saw the highest total of world military expenditure ever. On top of this, NATO nations, from Germany to Poland to the UK to the United States, now embark on recent historical military spending sprees — as if military spending was not already disproportionate to the real-world needs of both people and planet, representing an utter misplacement of vital resources. The stakes are high for military contractors to get their sustainable label in time to harvest this spending. Yet, the stakes are much higher for the populations bearing the brunt as the arms industry flourishes.

As more is lost to the militarization of environmental and social crises, less is spent on addressing root causes and preventing further environmental and social breakdown. Far more sustainable would be to prioritize diplomacy and development over “defense” and invest in the practices that stop wars from erupting — from climate solutions to peacebuilding to global health and beyond — rather than the industries that depend on the perpetuation of war to line shareholders’ pockets.

Challenging the militarization of sustainability by foregrounding people-centered nonmilitary security frameworks and just social and environmental transition experiences and solutions, is our only hope.

The congregation claimed that the city had visited their property more than 126 times over a two-year period.

By World Israel News Staff

The city of Miami Beach has reached a settlement agreement, involving a payment of $1.3 million, with a small Orthodox synagogue that had filed a lawsuit claiming discriminatory treatment.

Congregation Bais Yeshaya D’Kerestir, which meets in a private home owned by Rabbi Arie Wohl, argued that their invitation-only services rendered the building’s usage similar to any private residence, and thus it should not be subject to frequent inspections.

The congregation, also known as the “Keristier Shteible,” claimed that the city had visited their property more than 126 times over a two-year period, allegedly to enforce various city laws, including pandemic restrictions on large gatherings, as per a lawsuit filed in April 2022.

The lawsuit also claimed that the city had installed a surveillance camera in 2021 that focused solely on their property, accusing the city of violating their First Amendment rights through discriminatory and arbitrary enforcement of zoning laws.

Miami Beach was “wrongfully discriminating against Plaintiffs’ First Amendment protected rights of religious exercise and assembly through discriminatory and arbitrary enforcement of the City’s zoning ordinances,” the congregation claimed.

The city for its part argued that a religious institution was operating in a residential building, which was against the city’s zoning laws.

Despite these claims, the city agreed to settle the lawsuit to avoid a protracted court battle, paying the congregation $1.3 million, some $100,000 more than the purchase price of the home in 2020, according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

As part of the settlement, the congregation agreed to certain conditions, including improving the condition of its driveway, refrain from using outdoor speakers for prayer activities – something never done with Orthodox synagogues regardless – and limiting the number of cars parked in the area outside the property.

Both the city and the congregation agreed on a new process to deal with future code violations, and the congregation agreed not to apply for a religious tax exemption for the property. Despite the contentious nature of the dispute, Miami Beach Mayor Dan Gelber told The Miami Herald, “Ultimately, we do support the celebration of faith in our community.”

This case is not an isolated incident, as there have been similar disputes in other locations. For instance, in University Heights, Ohio, a court battle was recently settled between the city and a congregation called the Alexander Shul. In that case, the settlement involved the synagogue paying $1.59 million and an agreement to construct a new synagogue that meets state building codes.

Unfortunately, I was not able to find updated information on the current situation in Israel with the Defense Minister Yoav Galant and Rabin Medical Center. As of my last update in September 2021, I recommend checking the most recent news sources for the latest updates.

The post City of Miami Beach settles discrimination case against Jewish synagogue for $1.3 million appeared first on World Israel News.

Ukraine continues pursuing false hope of NATO membership.

“I just feel like sadly the Democratic party has been hijacked by loud voices of far-left socialists and I don’t think they represent many of the people with liberal views.”

By Shiryn Ghermezian, Algemeiner

Human rights activist, former Miss Universe contestant and Iraq native Sarah Idan has filed with the Federal Election Commission and is officially running to represent California’s 30th District in the US House of Representatives.

The Los Angeles resident and founder of the non-profit bipartisan organization Humanity Forward will be running as a Democrat for a position in Congress currently held by Representative Adam Schiff, who is vacating the seat to run for the Senate in 2024. If she wins, she will be the first Iraqi female immigrant and secular Muslim Zionist in history to be elected to Congress, she told The Algemeiner.

“I don’t think there’s a better candidate to represent minority groups than me being an immigrant, Muslim woman and coming from Iraq, a country directly affected by US [foreign] policies,” the 33-year-old explained. “My voice is definitely the voice of the minority and in Congress, I feel like we need an Iraqi voice.”

Idan was born in 1990 in Baghdad and is the second youngest of five kids. When she was 18, she volunteered with the US Army in Iraq as a translator. She moved to America two years later and became a US citizen in 2015. Her late father, who died in 2021 from COVID-19, was a military engineer for Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party but left the party when he saw Hussein orchestrate violent attacks.

Idan is also the founder and CEO of Humanity Forward, which is “committed to building bridges among Muslims and Jews in order to surpass borders and promote reconciliation, tolerance, mutual understanding, and peace,” according to its website. She hosts a podcast called the Sarai Talk Show and received the Ambassador for Peace Award by UN Watch in 2019.

Idan represented Iraq in the Miss Universe pageant in 2017. She received death threats and was forced to leave her home country after posing with Miss Israel Adar Gandelsman during the competition. Her citizenship from Iraq was also revoked because of the incident and her family was forced to flee the country in the aftermath of the scandal. Her family now lives in another Arab country that have formal relations with Israel. Idan has continued to push for solidarity with Israel as well as defend the country and promote the normalization of relations with the Jewish state.

The issues that are the core of Idan’s election campaign include tackling the crime rates in Los Angeles, poverty, homelessness, inflation, strengthening relations with Israel, and building more opportunities for Israel and California to support each others economic growth. She told The Algemeiner that in the MENA region, Israel is “one of the only true allies to actually support the United States and share the same ideology.”

Idan has criticized in the past Democrats such as Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib and other members of the Congressional “Squad” for making remarks critical of Jews and Israel. The former beauty queen told The Algemeiner they are one of the main reasons why she is running for Congress.

“I just feel like sadly the Democratic party has been hijacked by loud voices of far-left socialists and I don’t think they represent many of the people with liberal views,” she said. “They have taken it to an extreme. It’s not only about social issues. Even when it comes to foreign policy and their involvement with basically enemies of the US and trying to always attack our allies in the Middle East [like Israel].”

“Even the woman rights movement in Iran,” she adding, talking about how Omar defamed Iranian journalist and human rights activist Masih Alinejad as “Islamophobic” — even though she was born a Muslim in Iran — and shared an article on Twitter in 2020 that questioned the latter’s credentials as she continues to advocate for women’s rights in Iran. Omar’s husband also accused Alinejad on Twitter of not liking Muslims.

“This is why I feel like we need a voice like mine because we need a secular Muslim,” Idan explained. “I want to be the voice of reason and I hate how ‘The Squad,’ whenever anyone questions them, [like] when they attack Israel, they always [claim] ‘I’m being targeted because I’m a Muslim, a woman of color.’ I just feel like we need someone like me who can literally say, ‘No, this is not why. I’m an Arab, Muslim, immigrant woman of color and I do not share your ideology or agenda.’”

Idan also believes that she can bring to Congress something that many others can’t, which is first-hand experience of what it’s like to live in the Middle East. She explained that some members of the “The Squad” like Omar — whose family fled Somalia as refugees — left their home countries when they were very young and as refugees “so they don’t have a clue about the geo-politics and problems in the Middle East.”

“As an activist who is involved and comes from the Middle East, I would represent a more realistic picture of what’s going on rather than people who came here when they were refugees at a very young age and never dealt with what I went through and am still going through until today, me and my family,” Idan added. “I have all this passion and I really want to be involved because I am directly affected by all these decisions, by what Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib and AOC [New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] are pushing. My family is in danger. I’m in danger. I’m not welcome in Iraq and I’ll probably get killed the minute I land there. We need secular Muslims [in Congress] and Muslims who believe in freedom and want to be a non-radical voice.”

California’s 30th Congressional district election will be held on Nov. 5, 2024.

The post Beauty queen who lost Iraqi citizenship for taking selfie with Miss Israel makes congressional run for Democrats appeared first on World Israel News.