A Palestinian child wounded in the Israeli bombardment of the Gaza Strip is treated in a hospital in Deir al-Balah, September 23, 2024
MORE women and children have been killed by Israel in Gaza in the last 12 months than perished in the equivalent period of any other conflict over the past 20 years, damning new research published by Oxfam today shows.
The charity highlights conservative figures that estimate 6,000 women and 11,000 children in Gaza have been killed by the Israeli military in the past year.
But the numbers exclude those among the 20,000 who are unidentified or missing.
No other conflict has caused such a high number of child or women fatalities within a 12-month period, over the past two decades.
Ken Klippenstein, an independent reporter operating on Substack and an investigative alum of the Intercept, announced (Substack, 9/26/24) that he had been kicked off Twitter (now rebranded as X). His crime, he explained, stemmed from posting the 271-page official dossier of Republican vice presidential candidate’s J.D. Vance’s campaign vulnerabilities; the US government alleges that the information was leaked through Iranian hacking. In other words, the dossier is a part of the “foreign meddling campaign” of “enemy states.”
Klippenstein is not the first reporter to gain access to these papers (Popular Information, 9/9/24), but most of the reporting about this dossier has been on the intrigue revolving around Iranian hacking rather than the content itself (Daily Beast, 8/10/24; Politico, 8/10/24; Forbes, 8/11/24). Klippenstein decided it was time for the whole enchilada to see the light of day:
As far as I can tell, it hasn’t been altered, but even if it was, its contents are publicly verifiable. I’ll let it speak for itself.
“The terror regime in Iran loves the weakness and stupidity of Kamala Harris, and is terrified of the strength and resolve of President Donald J. Trump,” Steven Cheung, communications director for the Trump campaign, responded when I asked him about the hack.
If the document had been hacked by some “anonymous”-like hacker group, the news media would be all over it. I’m just not a believer of the news media as an arm of the government, doing its work combating foreign influence. Nor should it be a gatekeeper of what the public should know.
The US Office of the Director of National Intelligence said in a statement that alleged Iranian hacking (9/18/24) was “malicious cyber activity” and “the latest example of Iran’s multi-pronged approach…to stoke discord and undermine confidence in our electoral process.”
Where’s the beef?
Ken Klippenstein (Substack, 9/26/24) argued that the Vance dossier ” is clearly newsworthy, providing Republican Party and conservative doctrine insight into what the Trump campaign perceives to be Vance’s liabilities and weaknesses.”
The Vance report isn’t as salacious as Vance’s false and bizarre comments about Haitians eating pets (NPR, 9/15/24), but it does show that he has taken positions that have fractured the right, such as aid for Ukraine; the report calls him one of the “chief obstructionists” to providing assistance to the country against Russia. It dedicates several pages to Vance’s history of criticizing Trump and the MAGA movement, suggesting that his place on the ticket could divide Trump’s voting base.
On the other hand, it outlines many of his extreme right-wing stances that could alienate him with putative moderates. It says Vance “appears to have once called for slashing Social Security and Medicare,” and “is opposed to providing childcare assistance to low-income Americans.” He “supports placing restrictions on abortion access,” and states that “he does not support abortion exceptions in the case of rape.”
And for any voter who values 7-day-a-week service, Vance “appears to support laws requiring businesses to close on Sundays.” It quotes him saying: “Close the Damn Businesses on Sunday. Commercial Freedom Will Suffer. Moral Behavior Will Not, and Our Society Will Be Much the Better for It.” That might not go over well with small business owners, and any worker who depends on their Sunday shifts.
‘Took a deep breath’
The Washington Post (8/13/24) suggested that Vance dossier was different from Hillary Clinton’s hacked emails in 2016 because of “foreign state actors increasingly getting involved” in US elections.
Are the findings in the Vance dossier the story of the century? Probably not, but it’s not nothing that the Trump campaign is aware its vice presidential candidate is loaded with liabilities. There are at least a few people who find that useful information.
And the Washington Post (9/27/24) happily reported on private messages Vance sent to an anonymous individual who shared them with the newspaper that explained Vance’s flip-flopping from a Trump critic to a Trump lover. Are the private messages really more newsworthy than the dossier—or is the issue that the messages aren’t tainted by allegedly foreign fingerprints? Had that intercept of material involved an Iranian, would it have seen the light of day?
In fact, the paper (8/13/24) explained that news organizations, including the Post, were reflecting on the foreign nature of the leak when deciding how deep they should report on the content they received:
“This episode probably reflects that news organizations aren’t going to snap at any hack that comes in and is marked as ‘exclusive’ or ‘inside dope’ and publish it for the sake of publishing,” said Matt Murray, executive editor of the Post. Instead, “all of the news organizations in this case took a deep breath and paused, and thought about who was likely to be leaking the documents, what the motives of the hacker might have been, and whether this was truly newsworthy or not.”
Double standards for leaks
Politico (10/7/16) quoted a Clinton spokesperson: “Striking how quickly concern about Russia’s masterminding of illegal hacks gave way to digging through fruits of hack.” This was immediately followed by: “Indeed, here are eight more e-mail exchanges that shed light on the methods and mindset of Clinton’s allies in Brooklyn and Washington.”
There seems to be a disconnect, however, between ill-gotten information that impacts a Republican ticket and information that tarnishes a Democrat.
Think back to 2016. When “WikiLeaks released a trove of emails apparently hacked from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman email account, unleashing thousands of messages,” as Politico (10/7/16) reported, the outlet didn’t just merely report on the hack, it reported on the embarrassing substance of the documents. In 2024, by contrast, when Politico was given the Vance dossier, it wrote nothing about its contents, declaring that “questions surrounding the origins of the documents and how they came to our attention were more newsworthy than the material that was in those documents” (CNN, 8/13/24).
The New York Times and Washington Post similarly found the Clinton leaks—which were believed at the time to have been given to WikiLeaks by Russia—far more newsworthy than the Vance dossier. The Times “published at least 199 articles about the stolen DNC and Clinton campaign emails between the first leak in June 2016 and Election Day,” Popular Information (9/9/24) noted.
FAIR editor Jim Naureckas (11/24/09) has written about double standards in media, noting that information that comes to light through unethical or illegal means is played up if that information helps powerful politicians and corporations. Meanwhile, if such information obtained questionably is damaging, the media focus tends to be less on the substance, and more on whether the public should be hearing about such matters.
For example, when a private citizen accidentally overheard a cell phone conversation between House Speaker John Boehner, former Speaker Newt Gingrich and other Republican congressmembers, and made a tape that showed Gingrich violating the terms of a ethics sanction against him, news coverage focused on the illegality of taping the conversation, not on the ethics violation the tape revealed (Washington Post, 1/14/97; New York Times, 1/15/97).
But when climate change deniers hacked climate scientists’ email, that produced a front-page story in the New York Times (11/20/09) scrutinizing the correspondence for any inconsistencies that could be used to bolster the deniers’ arguments.
When Cincinnati Enquirer reporter Michael Gallagher wrote a series of stories about the Chiquita fruit corporation, based in part on listening without authorization to company voicemails, the rest of the media were far more interested in Gallagher’s ethical and legal dilemmas (he was eventually sentenced to five years’ probation) rather than the bribery, fraud and worker abuse his reporting exposed.
Meet the new boss
Musk personally ordered the suspension of the account of antifascist activist Curt Loder, the Independent (1/29/23) revealed, noting that “numerous other accounts of left-leaning activists and commentators have been suspended without warning.”
There’s a certain degree of comedy in the hypocrisy of Klippenstein’s suspension. Since right-wing billionaire Elon Musk bought Twitter, he has claimed that his administration would end corporate censorship, but instead he’s implemented his own censorship agenda (Guardian, 1/15/24; Al Jazeera, 8/14/24).
The Independent (1/29/23) reported that Musk “oversaw a campaign of suppression that targeted his critics upon his assumption of power at Twitter.” He
personally directed the suspension of a left-leaning activist, Chad Loder, who became known across the platform for his work helping to identify participants in the January 6 attack.
Al Jazeera (2/28/23) noted that “digital rights groups say social media giants,” including X, “have restricted [and] suspended the accounts of Palestinian journalists and activists.” Musk has likewise fulfilled censorship requests by the governments of Turkey (Ars Technica, 5/15/23) and India (Intercept, 1/24/23, 3/28/23) officials, and is generally more open to official requests to suppress speech than Twitter‘s previous owners (El Pais, 5/24/23; Washington Post, 9/25/24).
Meanwhile, Musk’s critics contend, he’s allowed the social network to be a force multiplier for the right. “Elon Musk has increasingly used the social media platform as a megaphone to amplify his political views and, lately, those of right-wing figures he’s aligned with,” AP (8/13/24) reported. (Musk is vocal about his support for former President Donald Trump’s candidacy—New York Times, 7/18/24.)
“Twitter Antisemitism ‘Skyrocketed’ Since Elon Musk Takeover—Jewish Groups,” blasted a Newsweek headline (4/25/23). Earlier this year, Mother Jones (3/13/24) reported that Musk “has been retweeting prominent race scientist adherents…spreading misinformation about racial minorities’ intelligence and physiology to his audience of 176.3 million followers.”
‘Chilling effect on speech’
The message Ken Klippenstein got from X announcing he had been kicked off the platform.
Now Musk’s Twitter is keeping certain information out of the public view—information that just happens to damage the presidential ticket he supports. With Klippenstein having been silenced on the network, anyone claiming X is a bastion of free speech at this point is either mendacious or simply deluded.
Klippenstein (Substack, 9/26/24) explained that “X says that I’ve been suspended for ‘violating our rules against posting private information,’ citing a tweet linking to my story about the JD Vance dossier.” He added, though, that “I never published any private information on X.” Rather, “I linked to an article I wrote here, linking to a document of controversial provenance, one that I didn’t want to alter for that very reason.”
The journalist (Substack, 9/27/24) claims that his account suspension, which he reports to be permanent, is political because he did not violate the network’s code about disclosing personal information, and even if he did, he should have been given the opportunity to correct his post to become unsuspended. “So it’s not about a violation of X’s policies,” he said. “What else would you call this but politically motivated?”
Klippenstein is understandably concerned that he is now without a major social media promotional tool. “I no longer have access to the primary channel by which I disseminate primarily news (and shitposts of course) to the general public,” he said. “This chilling effect on speech is exactly why we published the Vance Dossier in its entirety.”
UPDATE: Klippenstein (Substack, 9/29/24) reports that his publication of the Vance dossier is being censored not only by X, but by Meta (Facebook and Instagram) and Google as well: “The platforms said that the alleged Iranian origin of the dossier — which no one is calling fake or altered — necessitated removing any links to the document.”
FAIR’s work is sustained by our generous contributors, who allow us to remain independent. Donate today to be a part of this important mission.
Israeli tanks were pictured near the Israel-Lebanon border on September 28, 2024. (Photo: Ilia Yefimovich/Picture Alliance via Getty Images)
“Despite the Israeli government’s serious escalation in Lebanon and indiscriminate bombings in Gaza and the West Bank, President Biden continues to funnel billions in lethal military aid.”
Israeli forces appear poised to launch a ground invasion of Lebanon within days following a sustained bombing campaign that has killed more than a thousand people—including dozens of children—and displaced more than a million, heightening fears of a large-scale humanitarian disaster and a wider war that could consumer the entire region.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has already carried out what were described as “limited ground incursions” across the Lebanese border, but a larger invasion could be imminent given the positioning of Israeli troops and rhetoric from top Israeli officials.
“We will use all the means that may be required—your forces, other forces, from the air, from the sea, and on land,” Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant told Israeli troops on Monday.
The mayor of a Christian-majority Lebanese village located roughly six miles from the Lebanon-Israel border toldReuters that locals “had received calls apparently from the Israeli army telling them to evacuate the area as soon as possible.”
Humanitarian groups have warned that a full-scale ground invasion would be a disaster for the Lebanese people, many of whom have seen their lives upended by Israeli attacks over the past two weeks.
“We are gravely concerned about the possibility of an Israeli ground invasion of Lebanon,” said Julie Mehigan, Christian Aid’s head of Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. “The patterns we’re seeing from the attacks of the last few days are reminiscent of what we’ve seen in Gaza these last few months. Massive displacement and killing of civilians, whole families killed in their homes, and schools converted into shelters. All the while Gaza is continually being bombed from land, air, and sea.”
“We are on the precipice of yet another humanitarian calamity in the region,” Mehigan added.
“Not only is this administration sending more bombs aimed at them and other civilians, they’re also helping Netanyahu cover up his crimes. It’s despicable.”
The Biden administration, which provided the 2,000-pound bombs that Israel used to kill Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and dozens of civilians in an attack on Beirut late Friday, is reportedly prepared to give Israel approval to move troops into Lebanon as long as the invasion is “limited.”
But the Israeli government, headed by far-right Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has repeatedly disregarded the Biden administration’s stated conditions. As The New York Times observed Monday, the administration wanted the Israeli military to “eschew major combat operations” in the southern Gaza city of Rafah earlier this year. The IDF went on to launch a massive assault on the city, rendering it uninhabitable.
Akbar Shahid Ahmed, HuffPost‘s senior diplomatic correspondent, reported Monday that the Biden administration is unlikely to “veto” Israeli plans for a ground invasion of Lebanon and noted he is hearing a “growing sense” that “an Israeli invasion of Lebanon with U.S. backing (based on the idea it will be limited) is coming.”
Spoke with several sources in the last ~ hour who did not believe a decision has been made on an Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
But clear all around a US veto is unlikely.
A career US official working on the ME told me Washington's permitting "a nihilistic regional murder spree."
The possibility of an imminent Israeli ground invasion of Lebanon has heightened concerns of a full-blown regional war with potentially devastating global implications. Hezbollah has pledged to retaliate against Israel for the assassination of Nasrallah, and Iran—which has thus far acted with restraint—could also decide to intervene as Lebanon’s government works to prevent the military conflict from spiraling.
Craig Mokhiber, a human rights attorney and former director of the New York office of the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, wrote on social media Monday that “as Israel continues its genocide in Palestine, expands its murderous rampage into Lebanon (perhaps even launching a ground invasion to ethnically cleanse the south) the West cheers and arms them, Arab governments sleep, the U.N. looks the other way, the [International Criminal Court] stalls, the Global South offers only symbolic objections, and the world is dragged passively toward WWIII.”
Israel’s intensifying assault on Lebanon has sparked fresh calls for a halt to U.S. arms transfers to the Israeli military, which relies heavily on American-made weaponry.
Maurice Mitchell, national director of the U.S.-based Working Families Party, said in a statement Monday that Israel’s ongoing attacks on Lebanon “mark an extreme escalation that further threatens the stability of the region” and expressed support for an effort led by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to block recently approved arms sales.
“Despite the Israeli government’s serious escalation in Lebanon and indiscriminate bombings in Gaza and the West Bank, President Biden continues to funnel billions in lethal military aid to the Israeli government without conditions, including $8.7 billion last week,” said Mitchell. “This coupled with new reports that the Israeli government violated international law by deliberately blocking humanitarian aid to families in Gaza underscores the urgent need to stop the flow of offensive weapons to the Israeli government.”
Abbas Alawieh, a Lebanese American from Michigan and a co-founder of the Uncommitted National Movement, said Monday that “every hour, I get messages from my family in Lebanon, asking when the American-funded bombs will stop.”
“Not only is this administration sending more bombs aimed at them and other civilians, they’re also helping Netanyahu cover up his crimes,” said Alawieh. “It’s despicable.”
U.S. Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris speaks during a campaign event at the Expo at World Market Center in Las Vegas, Nevada, September 29, 2024 (Photo by Ronda Churchill/AFP via Getty Images)
In our 30 years of polling Arab American voters, we haven’t witnessed anything like the role that the war on Gaza is having on voter behavior.
For Arab Americans, Israel’s war on Palestinians in Gaza looms large and will play a significant role in this November’s election. This is one of the key observations emerging from a mid-September nationwide poll of 500 Arab American registered voters conducted by John Zogby Strategies for the Arab American Institute.
A full year of this devastating assault on Gaza has reshaped the Arab American electorate, souring their attitude toward the Democratic Party, sapping their enthusiasm to vote in this election, and negatively impacting their inclination to vote for Vice President Kamala Harris for President.
Since we first began polling Arab Americans 30 years ago, the community has consistently favored the Democratic Party, with the margin of that support holding steady at nearly two to one for the past decade and a half. The Biden administration’s handling of the crisis in Gaza, however, has eroded that support resulting in Arab Americans now evenly divided between the two parties—38.5% for each. Equally revealing is the fact that by a slight margin (46% to 44%) voters in the community say they would prefer to see Republicans controlling the next Congress.
Arab American voter turnout has consistently been in the 80% range. But this year only 63% of the community say they are enthusiastic about voting in November, likely impacting voter turnout in November.
All of this has taken a toll on Harris’ prospects for winning Arab American votes in her contest with former President Donald Trump. While President Biden won 59% of the Arab American vote in 2020, compared with 35% for Trump, this year’s poll shows that in a multi-candidate matchup both candidates are in a virtual dead heat in the 41-42% range. More ominous for Harris is that when only considering likely voters, Trump leads 46% to 42%.
Arab American voter turnout has consistently been in the 80% range. But this year only 63% of the community say they are enthusiastic about voting in November, likely impacting voter turnout in November.
While a few unscientific “polls” have suggested that a third-party candidate would garner a majority of the Arab American vote, this AAI poll shows that not to be the case. All of the third-party candidates combined receive just 12% of the Arab American vote. Instead, it’s Trump who is the beneficiary of the community’s anger and, I might add, even despair over the Biden administration’s failure in addressing the crisis in Gaza.
This may be surprising given Trump’s record and recent statements, but there are a few factors that may account for this development. On the one hand, it may be that as a result of the year-long trauma, there is a desire to punish Democrats. Additionally, it appears that despite Trump’s dismal record with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his total support for Israel’s aims in the war, the data from the AAI poll shows that sub-groups previously aligned with the Republican Party are returning to the fold and voting for that party’s candidate. All of which lends emphasis to the way the Gaza crisis has impacted this election.
Further evidence of Gaza’s role is the 81% of Arab Americans who say that Gaza will be an important consideration in their vote. For example, when asked if Harris were either to demand an immediate ceasefire and unimpeded humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza or to withhold diplomatic support for and arms aid to Israel until it implements a ceasefire and withdraws its forces from Gaza, Harris’ vote among Arab Americans would increase to around 62%. This new Harris tally captures one-third of Trump voters, while virtually wiping out the votes that would go to the third-party candidates. If Trump were to make the same demands on Israel, he too would benefit increasing his vote tally to 56%. This increased vote count for Trump comes from one-quarter of Harris voters and one-half of the votes going to third-party candidates.
The year-long unfolding genocide in Gaza and the catastrophe now facing Lebanon has impacted every component sub-group within the community
While these measures are needed and important to end the war, announcing such a policy change in the midst of a campaign might be considered a heavy lift. Other less dramatic steps could have been taken to win more Arab American support. For example, Harris lost an important opportunity to send a message to Arab Americans demonstrating concern for Palestinians when her campaign refused to include a Palestinian American with family in Gaza to speak at the Democratic convention. When asked if it would have made a difference in how they would vote if the Harris campaign had invited a Palestinian American to speak, the response was a substantial “yes.” If the campaign had done so, Harris’ vote tally from Arab Americans would have increased to 61%. That moment was squandered, but others may still arise and if Harris still wants Arab American support, then these opportunities shouldn’t be passed over.
In our 30 years of polling Arab American voters, we haven’t witnessed anything like the role that the war on Gaza is having on voter behavior. The year-long unfolding genocide in Gaza and the catastrophe now facing Lebanon has impacted every component sub-group within the community, with only slight variations among religious communities and countries of origin, immigrant or native-born, gender and age groups. With little over one month remaining before the election, Arab Americans and, as our polls of U.S. voters have shown, those who share their concerns (young and non-white voters) will be watching to see if their deeply felt concerns with Gaza and now Lebanon will be recognized and respected with a promise for change.
Volunteers meet at the People’s Forum to organize Palestine solidarity efforts around New York City. (Photo: Wyatt Souers)
Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and other Republican lawmakers launch direct attack against organizations standing with Palestine
On September 25, Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson took to social media to attack several pro-Palestine organizations, which have been leading in the solidarity movement across the United States. Johnson referenced the action taken by the United States House Committee on Ways and Means, led by conservative Representative Jason Smith, which has called on the IRS to revoke the tax-exempt status of eight organizations. According to Smith, these organizations have “organized and subsidized illegal activity on college campuses and beyond and have potentially provided support to terrorist organizations overseas.”
The eight organizations are the Alliance for Global Justice, the Westchester Peace Action Committee Foundation, Jewish Voice for Peace, Islamic Relief USA, United Hands Relief, the Peoples Forum, Tides, and Americans for Justice in Palestine Educational Foundation.
“[Jason Smith] and [House Republicans] are putting you on notice. Your tax-exempt status should be revoked immediately,” Johnson said.
Some organizations have responded to these attacks and rejecting what they call political persecution. The Peoples Forum, a New York City based social movement center, was accused by the Ways and Means Committee of engaging “in conduct directly intended to incite riots, cause chaos, and disrupt education on college and university campuses and beyond, all despite its stated tax-exempt purpose and mission designed to support the working class.”
“This conduct is designed to sow chaos and discord in our society, has involved illegal activities, and certainly is not in furtherance of any tax-exempt purpose,” the accusation continues.
The People’s Forum wrote in a statement, “Right-wing Republican speaker of the house Mike Johnson has joined other Republican leaders in a major political attack designed to criminalize dissent, and silence those who oppose the Israeli genocide in Gaza. The allegations are “reminiscent of the worst part of the McCarthy Era,” the organization wrote.
