Daniel Imperato – Official Website
Daniel Imperato For President 2024
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 Kiev’s Counterattack Unlikely to be Successful Due to Big Casualties appeared first on Global Research.
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 The Kremlin under Drone Attack, Failed Attempt to Assassinate President Putin appeared first on Global Research.
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 2.4 Million Participate in May Day Demonstrations Across France appeared first on Global Research.
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 Obama’s Broken Promises in Afghanistan appeared first on Global Research.
Likud suggests Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit can bolt the government, as party vows not to support coalition in Knesset votes after ceasefire announced.
By World Israel News Staff
Tensions ran high in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition Wednesday after one of his right-wing allies lambasted the government over what it deemed a “weak response” to terrorist rocket attacks against southern Israel.
The ruling Likud party slammed the rightist Otzma Yehudit faction Wednesday afternoon after its chairman, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, announced that the party would boycott votes in the Knesset, in protest of what he called the “weak response” to rocket attacks overnight.
“Following the weak response in Gaza tonight, the Otzma Yehudit faction decided not to attend the Knesset votes today and will hold a special faction meeting in the city of Sderot,” Ben-Gvir said.
Hours later, the Likud issued a statement condemning the boycott and inviting Otzma Yehudit to bolt the government if dissatisfied with Netanyahu’s leadership.
“The Prime Minister, Defense Minister, the IDF, and security officials are the ones who manage the sensitive and complicated security matters the State of Israel is confronted with. It is the Prime Minister who decides who the relevant parties are for hearings. If that is not acceptable to Minister Ben-Gvir, he does not have to remain in the government,” the Likud stated.
Shortly afterwards, however, Ben-Gvir fired back, telling reporters at a press conference that Netanyahu had rescinded his policies and abandoned the government’s right-wing principles.
“I cancelled the terrorists’ phones in prison, but Netanyahu gave them back. This is not a fully right-wing government,” he said.
The national security minister responded directly to the Likud’s veiled threat, suggesting Netanyahu fire him and his fellow party members from the government if the prime minister is unsatisfied with the current arrangement.
“Mr. Prime Minister, if you don’t want Otzma Yehudit in your government, you are welcome to fire us. If you don’t want a fully right-wing government, you are welcome to send us home.
“Right now we won’t come for Knesset votes. We won’t show up for any Knesset votes until the prime minister understands that the purpose of this government is to be a fully right-wing government, and that we are an indispensable part of [security] hearings and the fulfillment of security policies of the Israeli government.”
Islamic Jihad terrorists operating out of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip fired 104 rockets and a number of mortar shells towards Israel from Tuesday afternoon to early Wednesday morning, claiming the attacks were in retaliation for the death of Sheikh Khader Adnan in an Israeli prison. Adnan, a senior figure in the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror group, had refused to eat for 86 days when he was found in his prison cell at the Nitzan Prison.
Opposition lawmakers, including Opposition Leader Yair Lapid ,expressed support for the government following the attacks, despite intense rhetoric against the Coalition recently amid the debate over the judicial overhaul.
“The opposition will support the government in any military action that will bring peace and security to the residents of the south,” Lapid wrote on Tuesday evening.
The post Netanyahu ‘welcome to fire us’: Tension mounts between Likud, Ben-Gvir over ‘weak response’ to terror appeared first on World Israel News.
The Jihadi terrorist’s wife praised Tuesday’s barrage of missiles launched against Israel, although an earlier report said that she initially urged the terrorists not to attack, fearing loss of Palestinian lives.
By World Israel News Staff
The wife of Khader Adnan, a senior Palestinian Islamic Jihad official who died in an Israeli prison Tuesday after an 86-day long hunger strike, has called on all Palestinians, wherever they are, to avenge her husband’s blood, blogger Abu Ali Express reported Wednesday.
The 45-year-old PIJ terrorist and father of two girls had refused all food and medical care offered during his incarceration and popularized the use of hunger strikes by Palestinian prisoners.
Gaza terrorists fired 104 rockets at Israel Tuesday, blaming Israel for Adnan’s death. The IDF slammed the Strip in retaliation; a ceasefire – reportedly brokered by Egypt, the UN and Qatar – was announced Wednesday.
The “heroes on the ground in Gaza did not disappoint,” Adnan’s wife stated in praise of the attack on Israeli territory, the blog report said. “The response of Gaza’s Joint Command Room restored Khader’s spirit to me.”
Siding with PIJ and Hamas, she also slammed the Palestinian Authority, the “Authority of Shame” – likely referring to the recent clashes in Jenin between PA security personnel and PIJ terrorists, according to Abu Ali.
However, a Tazpit Press Service report on Tuesday quoted Adnan’s wife, speaking to reporters at her home in Arrabah, near Jenin, as calling on terrorist groups not to retaliate.
“In all the sheikh’s previous hunger strikes not a single drop of blood was shed, and today, with his death, we will not want a single drop of blood to be shed.
“We don’t want anyone to comment on his death, and we don’t want anyone to fire rockets that will lead to reactions and attacks on Gaza,” she reportedly said.
Also according to TPS, the PIJ denied reports on Israeli media of negotiations with Israel, with Egypt as a mediator, for the return of Adnan’s body in exchange for retaliation.
“The return of Adnan’s body is “a pure right of the Palestinian people and is not subject to negotiation. We will return the bodies of all our martyrs, with all the means at our disposal, just as we will release our prisoners,” the terrorist organization said in a statement, TPS reported.
“My husband faced death on hunger strike, but I support his fight against Israeli occupation,” she stated in 2018.
The post Missile attacks on Israel ‘restored Khader’s spirit to me,’ says widow of hunger-striking terrorist appeared first on World Israel News.
People rally to show support for the Biden administration’s student debt relief plan in front of the the Supreme Court on February 28, 2023. (Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)
Newly unearthed documents show a major student loan servicer is projecting revenue increases even under President Joe Biden’s debt cancellation plan — directly undermining the argument Republican officials are making in their lawsuit to block the measure. But conservative justices on the Supreme Court appear prepared to strike down the debt relief program anyways, disregarding the evidence and their own legal theories to fulfill the wishes of the dark money network that helped build their Supreme Court supermajority.
At issue is the concept of “standing” — a legal term for who is allowed to bring a case to the judiciary. For years, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has consistently shut down cases they don’t like by insisting that plaintiffs are unharmed and therefore do not have standing to be in court. However, in Republicans’ current case attempting to block student debt relief, the same conservative justices are ignoring financial records refuting any claims of harm from the proposal.
Internal records from the Missouri student loan servicer that Republican states are arguing would be harmed by Biden’s plan show the entity has actually seen a massive revenue increase in recent years that is projected to continue even if debt relief goes into effect.
“There has been no fact-finding, no discovery, [and] the case was rushed forward using a rare procedure,” said Astra Taylor, a cofounder of the Debt Collective, a debtors’ union which unearthed the new documents. “We are a very small group, we are half volunteers, and we are doing the court’s homework, we are doing the government’s work in finding these facts. And they are not ambiguous.”
A key legacy of Chief Justice John Roberts’s tenure on the court has been limiting access to the court through a narrow definition of standing.
But conservative justices — installed on the court with the help of conservative advocacy groups now bankrolling efforts to challenge student debt relief — are apparently more willing to do the bidding of right-wing donors than defend their purported judicial principles.
The new records further undermine already dubious claims to standing in the challenge to the Biden administration’s student debt plan.
The case in question deals with President Joe Biden’s plan to cancel up to $10,000 in student debt for most federal borrowers (and up to $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients). The way Biden crafted the program made it vulnerable to legal challenges: Rather than canceling the debt automatically, which would make it practically impossible for courts to reverse, his plan required people to submit applications for relief.
That arrangement gave the plan’s conservative opponents time to organize against it. While they didn’t lack resources to fund the fight, they were stumped by how to prove standing.
Conservatives made numerous attempts to come up with plaintiffs who had apparently been harmed by Biden’s modest debt cancellation plan.
Only two cases made it to the Supreme Court. In one of those cases, the plaintiff argued she was being harmed by the plan because her debt wasn’t being forgiven, as she had private student loans. (That plaintiff had accepted a Paycheck Protection Program business loan — debt designed to be forgiven by the government — the previous year.)
The other is the case brought by six Republican attorneys general, Biden v. Nebraska. It made its way to the Supreme Court through an expedited process, which bypassed the typical fact-finding that happens in lower courts.
A George W. Bush-appointed federal district judge in Missouri dismissed the case, arguing the states didn’t have standing to sue. The states appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which granted an injunction, halting Biden’s cancellation plan amid legal challenges.
The Biden administration appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court, which granted a “certiorari before judgment,” a rare petition that asks the high court to hear cases before legal and factual issues have been resolved by lower courts.
Biden v. Nebraska rests on an argument that the Missouri government would suffer lost revenue if the state’s quasi-governmental student loan servicer, the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA), couldn’t collect the debt canceled by Biden.
During oral arguments in February, Nebraska Solicitor General James Campbell claimed that Biden’s student debt forgiveness plan “threatens to cut MOHELA’s operating revenue by 40 percent.”
Justice Elena Kagan asked Campbell why MOHELA itself hadn’t sued if that was the case. “Here the state has derived very substantial benefits from setting up MOHELA as an independent body with financial distance from the state and sue and be-sued authority,” Kagan said. “So why isn’t MOHELA responsible for deciding whether to bring this suit?”
Campbell said MOHELA could have sued, but the state also had an interest given the projected revenue losses.
However, no justice bothered to check whether the claim that MOHELA would lose revenue was true. An advocacy organization known as the Debt Collective, which has been pushing for Biden to cancel all student debt, decided to check for themselves.
The group obtained internal financial documents from MOHELA, via public records requests, showing that the entity has actually been experiencing massive revenue growth in recent years, and that growth is projected to continue under Biden’s cancellation plan.
According to an analysis co-authored by the Debt Collective and the Roosevelt Institute, a left-leaning think tank, MOHELA will see a revenue increase even if Biden’s cancellation goes into effect.
“Assuming President Biden’s proposed cancellation goes through, we estimate that MOHELA will service more than twice the number of accounts it serviced at the beginning of the COVID payment pause,” the report said. “It will also earn nearly twice as much revenue servicing federal direct loans as it has in any year prior to cancellation. This finding is backed by MOHELA’s own internal impact analysis, which shows it would make more revenue the first year after cancellation is processed than it did in 2022 or any prior year.”
The internal documents reveal that MOHELA recently acquired a new loan servicing contract, and so has actually seen a massive increase in its accounts since the loan repayment pause took effect in 2020. Even if Biden’s plan goes into effect, and an estimated two million of MOHELA’s accounts had their debt fully canceled, the company would still be servicing more accounts than before the pandemic.
Biden’s plan would end the current pause on student debt payments — meaning the rate that MOHELA gets paid to service federal loans will increase from $2 to nearly $3 per account if the plan goes into effect.
“In their brief to the Supreme Court, the six GOP attorneys general cited MOHELA’s 2022 financial statement, showing it made $88.9 million in revenue from servicing 5.2 million federal direct loans, and then went on to argue that cancellation will harm MOHELA’s revenues,” the report says. “This is 88 percent more than the amount MOHELA made in 2022, and significantly more than it has made in its entire history.”
The report supports an argument that proponents of debt cancellation have been making for years: Nobody loses.
“It’s really hard to stop student debt cancellation because you need to find someone who is harmed by it,” said Thomas Gokey, a co-founder of the Debt Collective who authored the report. “And the truth is, nobody is actually harmed by student debt cancellation. It benefits everybody. It benefits people who don’t have student debt.”
The conservative officials attempting to block the Biden student debt relief plan have deep ties to the dark money network that helped construct the Supreme Court’s current 6-3 conservative supermajority.
The student debt case in question was first brought by Republican attorneys general in Missouri, Nebraska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, and South Carolina. Those officials have been backed by Republican attorneys general in seventeen more states.
“It’s patently unfair to saddle hard-working Americans with the loan debt of those who chose to go to college,” Arkansas attorney general Leslie Rutledge, who led the lawsuit, said in a statement.
She added: “The Department of Education is required, under the law, to collect the balance due on loans. And President Biden does not have the authority to override that.”
The longtime top donor to the Republican Attorneys General Association, which elects GOP attorneys general, is the Concord Fund, a dark money network led by conservative activist Leonard Leo.
As Donald Trump’s judicial adviser, Leo helped select three of the Supreme Court’s six conservative justices, while the Concord Fund spent tens of millions boosting their confirmation campaigns.
Leo’s network has funded several other organizations filing briefs in the case, including the Foundation for Government Accountability and the New Civil Liberties Alliance.
In theory, the new findings should have salience before the conservative justices, because one of the primary legacies of the John Roberts court — besides legalizing dark money political spending and enabling other forms of corruption — has been restricting who has the standing to bring lawsuits.
Since he was appointed chief justice of the court in 2005, Roberts has argued for “judicial self-restraint” and setting limits on who has standing to come before his court.
“I don’t think the courts should have a dominant role in society and stressing society’s problems,” Roberts said in his confirmation hearing. “What the standing doctrine requires is that you actually be injured by what the government is doing, injured by Congress’s action.”
In 2007, Roberts voted to overturn two decades-long precedents on the basis that plaintiffs had missed filing deadlines by just a couple of days. That year, he split from the court’s majority in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, arguing in a dissent that Massachusetts did not have standing to sue because the injuries from global warming were not “particular” to the state.
In 2015, the liberal court watchdog the Constitutional Accountability Center wrote in a review of his first ten years on the court that Roberts had dissented in every “significant case during his tenure as Chief Justice in which the court has refused to limit access to the courts, and he has always been in the majority when it has decided to limit such access.”
It’s a doctrine that the Roberts court has stood by in recent years. In 2020, the court’s conservative justices ruled that pensioners did not have standing to sue a bank that stole from their pension fund, because their pensions had not yet lost money. (That ruling just so happened to pave the way for billionaire GOP donor and Trump advisor Stephen Schwarzman to shut down another case accusing financial firms of misleading pension funds.)
But when it comes to student debt relief, the court’s conservative justices appear willing to accept dubious standing claims to force more debt onto millions of Americans.
Two leading conservative legal theorists, Samuel Bray and William Baude, pointed out this stunning hypocrisy in an amicus brief that cast doubt on Missouri’s standing.
“Missouri has no standing to complain about the loan servicing fees that the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA) might lose,” they wrote, also noting that the number of accounts MOHELA was servicing had nearly doubled the previous year. “MOHELA is far and away the most interested plaintiff, with Missouri’s claims being merely derivative of MOHELA’s. MOHELA has chosen not to bring a lawsuit, and as the ‘proper party’ to the suit, its decision ought to carry the day.”
Baude and Bray wrote that “even if the executive branch has exceeded its authority,” as conservatives argue, it “does not permit the judicial branch to exceed its authority.”
You can subscribe to David Sirota’s investigative journalism project, the Lever, here.
Joe Biden attends the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner in Washington, DC, on April 29, 2023. (Saul Loeb / AFP via Getty Images)
Campaign season is truly upon us. This weekend, President Joe Biden left the White House to rally the Democratic Party base and other constituents on whose behalf he’s spent the past two years working, getting them fired up and organized for what will be a fierce election contest. No, he wasn’t barnstorming the key Rustbelt states where for the past two elections, the swing of a few tens of thousands of votes have effectively decided the result. Rather, he was hobnobbing with one hundred fifty ultrarich party donors at a luxury hotel in Washington, DC.
It was a marked exception in the president’s schedule. Biden has spent most of his weekends as president outside of DC, at one of his two homes in Delaware or at Camp David in rural Maryland. So far this year, he’s spent a full twelve weekends without doing any public events and has only attended a dozen public events that were scheduled after 6 p.m., many of which were meetings with foreign leaders.
Clearly, this meeting was a high priority for the embattled president, who gave his gratitude to the assembled oligarchs and made clear he saw them as the backbone of his political ascent. “It’s because of you, I’m standing here. And it’s because of you, we’re going to win this time around,” Biden reportedly told the collection of one-percenters over a dinner of “roasted beetroot salad, prime New York strip loin with tiger shrimp, and orange mousse cake,” according to NBC.
“You raised significant amounts of money to allow us to compete” in 2020 and beat back Republicans in last year’s midterms, the news outlet reported him saying. “We’re going to do it again in 2024 together.”
“It’s very simple,” Biden told them. “We need you. Our democracy needs you.”
It’s hard not to hear the echo of a now-infamous pre-campaign event Biden attended in 2019, where he told a group of Wall Street financiers and other ultrawealthy potential donors that “nothing would fundamentally change” if he became president. “I need you very badly,” he told them then. “I hope if I win this nomination, I won’t let you down.”
Once president, Biden was as good as his word, abandoning or sabotaging the campaign promises most fiercely opposed by corporate America, implementing no new permanent social programs and presiding over a drastic undoing of the more generous expansion of the US safety net, carried out under his far-right predecessor due to the pandemic.
This time, Biden is aiming to beat the record fundraising total of $1.1 billion he notched up in 2020, campaign cochair and DreamWorks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg told CNN. But this group of opulent donors aren’t just being asked to fork over a bunch of cash. They also reportedly got strategy briefings from White House advisors and party officials and took part in discussions to create a “winning strategy that will fund winning campaigns” for all Democrats.
Compare this to Biden’s engagement with grassroots activists, the ordinary people who had spent untold hours in 2020 organizing and door-knocking in crucial states like Michigan, Georgia, and Arizona to deliver him the presidency. Last Thursday, he attended a twenty-minute-long virtual call with such campaigners, speaking, together with the First Lady, to those assembled for a total of just under six minutes, in what appeared to be a prerecorded video inserted into a live stream.
Meanwhile, the megadonors who had the pleasure of spending an entire weekend with the president and other Democratic bigwigs were effusive in their praise for the president.
“I’ve emphasized what he has accomplished and his leadership, and how essential it is in this moment in time for him to, one more time, saddle up and go do this,” Katzenberg told CNBC. Biden should be reelected for a “well-deserved second term,” said entertainment billionaire Haim “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel” Saban. “No one since FDR has accomplished as much for Americans,” gushed hedge fund executive Donald Sussman.
Outside of the world the country’s wealthiest people inhabit, the mood is different.
A February poll found that 62 percent of Americans think the president has accomplished “not very much” or “little to nothing” over his term. The vast majority don’t want Biden to run again, including 51 percent of Democrats, and a little less than a third of them think the president deserves to be reelected, including only 26 percent of the young voters who were key to powering Biden’s 2020 win.
Despite this, the president has embarked on a series of moves this year that are set to further alienate this cohort of Democratic-leaning voters least enthusiastic about his reelection. Earlier this year, Biden approved a series of rightward moves on crime, immigration, and climate, including approving what Al Gore called the “recklessly irresponsible” Willow oil project on Alaskan public lands. His administration is now set to go forward with another massive Alaskan fossil fuel project, what one environmentalist has labeled “a carbon bomb ten times the size of Willow.”
The president can afford to do this because the surprising results of the 2022 midterms convinced Democratic elites that they can return to the unambitious strategy they’d first used to accidentally bring Donald Trump to power in 2016. Biden made this clear to the assembled donors this weekend.
“In a bizarre way, all we got to do is point out, in many cases, comparison with what these guys want to do,” Biden told them. “Look what they just introduced, what they just passed in the House.” As Alan Kessler, a longtime Democratic fundraiser and corporate lawyer who defends firms in class action lawsuits, put it, “It’s just like it was four years ago. . . . The more Donald Trump opens his mouth about something, it just reminds people that we can’t go back to five years, six years of that.”
This strategy has been evident in the president’s campaign pitch so far, which has been conspicuously free of any new policy proposals or even promises about what he might do as president and has instead been laser-focused on emphasizing the danger of putting Trump and “MAGA Republicans” back into power. Misleadingly framing the strategy as a repeat of 2020 — when a robust policy agenda was in fact a major part of Biden’s pitch, core parts of which he quickly abandoned once he won — Biden insiders told the New York Times this year would see the party frame the choice as between a competent if uninspiring leader, and a chaotic, conspiracy-addled opposition.
One thing’s for sure: it’s certainly got the hedge fund managers of the world excited. But no matter how much money you raise, it’s not possible (yet) to literally buy elections in the United States, and Biden will still rely on millions of people to leave their homes or rush off after work to stand in line for hours at polling sites if he wants to win. And it remains to be seen if he’s convinced those people that’ll be worth the effort — or if he’ll even bother to try.
US envoy to the PA has met with PA, PLO, and Fatah officials to “to improve the lives of the Palestinian people,” but did he call on the PA to stop rewarding terrorists and murderers for attacking and murdering Israelis?
By Maurice Hirsch, Palestinian Media Watch
The 2018 bi-partisan US Taylor Force Act (TFA) conditioned much of the US aid to the Palestinian Authority on the latter abolishing its Pay-for-Slay terror reward policy. TFA was not merely a financial law. Rather, it contained substantive Congressional findings and direction, inter alia, to the US Department of State regarding the activities required of their representatives to pressure the PA to abandon its policy.
After finding that “The Palestinian Authority’s practice of paying salaries to terrorists serving in Israeli prisons, as well as to the families of deceased terrorists, is an incentive to commit acts of terror” TFA added the “Sense of Congress.” In this section of TFA, Congress called on the PA to abandon its terror reward policy and on other PA donor countries to cease aid to the PA until the PA abolished the policy.
TFA then added directions to urge “the Department of State to use its bilateral and multilateral engagements with all governments and organizations committed to the cause of peace between Israel and the Palestinians to highlight the issue of Palestinian Authority payments for acts of terrorism and to urge such governments and organizations to join the United States in calling on the Palestinian Authority to immediately cease such payments.”
In recent weeks, the PA approved its 2023 budget. While the PA hides its finances, the PA’s 2023 budget includes hundreds of millions of dollars that the PA will spend on its terror incentivizing and rewarding payments.
Soon after the announcement of the PA cabinet approval of the budget, Mr. Hady Amr, who according to the US Department of State website currently serves as the Special Representative for Palestinian Affairs within the Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs met with different senior PA, PLO and Fatah officials.
On April 11, Amr met, in the US, with governor of the PA Monetary Authority, Feras Milhem.
Two days later, in Ramallah, Amr met with Hussein Al-Sheikh, who is the Secretary General of the Executive Committee of the PLO (which is still a US designated terror organization).
On April 17, Amr met with Fatah Secretary Jibril Rajoub, who, as Palestinian Media Watch has exposed, openly called for the commission of terror attacks against Israel and uses his position as the Head of the Palestinian Football Association and Palestinian Olympic Committee to promote and glorify terror.
The US Department of State, Office of Palestinian Affairs, summed up Amr’s recent trip to the region by saying:
“Special Rep. Hady Amr wraps up six days in Jerusalem & the West Bank where he engaged w/government, religious and civil society leaders to improve the lives of the Palestinian people. He also had moving visits to the Church of the Holy Seplechure and Al Aqsa mosque.” (errors in source –Ed.)
[Twitter account of the U.S. Office of Palestinian Affairs, April 19, 2023]
While Amr is meeting with all the right people “to improve the lives of the Palestinian people” glaringly missing from all of the reports about his meetings is a clear, unequivocal and repeated call, as required by TFA, from the US administration’s most senior official to the Palestinians, demanding that the PA/PLO abolish its terror incentivizing and rewarding payments.
Having now completed six months in his position as the Biden administration’s Special Representative for Palestinian Affairs, Amr should be requested to provide a detailed summary of all his efforts to persuade the PA to abolish its terror reward policy.
The summary should include details of every meeting held by Amr with PA/PLO officials in which he raised and relayed the Sense of Congress, included in TFA, calling on the PA/PLO “to stop payments for acts of terrorism by individuals who are imprisoned after being fairly tried and convicted for acts of terrorism and by individuals who died committing acts of terrorism and to repeal the laws authorizing such payments.”
The post What is the US Palestinian Affairs representatiive doing to implement the Taylor Force Act? appeared first on World Israel News.
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 The Pending WW III Resolution in Congress to Defend Ukraine Against Russia appeared first on Global Research.