A man documents the damaged buildings at the site of an Israeli airstrike in Beirut’s southern suburb, Lebanon, October 1, 2024
ISRAEL’S invasion of Lebanon looked close to having ignited all-out war in the Middle East last night as Iran launched multiple missiles at Israeli targets in response.
It was unclear how Israel or the US, which has stationed huge forces in the region to back Israel up as it continues its Gaza genocide, would react as the Morning Star went to press.
The Israeli military followed up its violation of Lebanese territory by warning residents of nearly two dozen border communities to evacuate, hours after announcing the start of “limited” ground operations against the Hezbollah resistance movement.
…
British peace activists condemned Israel’s invasion and its attempts to portray it as a “limited” operation.
Independent MP Jeremy Corbyn told the Morning Star: “Israel’s decision to send troops into Lebanon, a sovereign nation, is no ‘limited ground operation,’ it is an invasion.”
Mr Corbyn also blasted British policy in the Middle East, saying: “Our government’s hypocrisy is on full display. Its failure to defend international law and stand up to Israel is a moral disgrace.”
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.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump, the 2024 Republican presidential nominee, speaks during a September 25, 2024 campaign rally in Mint Hill, North Carolina. (Photo: Brandon Bell/Getty Images)
“Trump’s threat to blow Iran’s largest cities and the country itself ‘to smithereens’ is an outrageous threat that should be widely condemned,” said the National Iranian American Council.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump’s threat on Wednesday to blow Iran “to smithereens” if he returns to power was condemned by a leading Iranian American advocacy group as “genocidal.”
Trump—the 2024 Republican nominee—addressed a campaign rally in North Carolina on Wednesday after he was reportedly briefed about alleged Iranian assassination threats against him.
“If I were the president, I would inform the threatening country—in this case, Iran—that if you do anything to harm this person, we are going to blow your largest cities and the country itself to smithereens,” he said to raucous applause. “We’re gonna blow it to smithereens, you can’t do that. And there would be no more threats.”
Responding to the former president’s remarks, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) said in a statement that “Trump’s threat to blow Iran’s largest cities and the country itself ‘to smithereens’ is an outrageous threat that should be widely condemned as psychotic and genocidal.”
Trump's threat to blow Iran's largest cities and the country itself "to smithereens" is an outrageous threat that should be widely condemned as psychotic and genocidal.https://t.co/8LImpJLefl
“Just like his threat to target 52 of Iran’s most cherished cultural sites, Trump appears disturbingly willing to kill millions of Iranians who have no say over the actions of their authoritarian government,” NIAC continued. “These remarks should be disqualifying for a man vying to once again be commander in chief and have sole authority over launching nuclear weapons with the power to make good on his horrifying threat.”
“Likewise, we unequivocally condemn any Iranian threats that may be targeted at Trump or former officials,” the group added. “Political violence must be rejected and prevented in all forms. Assassinations are a path to war and human suffering, as was demonstrated by the strike on [Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Maj. Gen.] Qasem Soleimani that engendered these threats, and risk further embroiling the region in violence.”
Trump ordered the January 2020 airstrike that killed Soleimani in Iraq. He also unilaterally withdrew from the so-called Iran nuclear deal and ramped up sanctions on Tehran, exacerbating Iran’s economic woes.
While Trump is known for his boastful and sometimes empty claims, as president he also followed through on his 2016 campaign promise to “bomb the shit out of” Islamic State fighters and “take out their families,” resulting in thousands of civilian casualties in countries including Iraq and Syria.
Although Trump often presents himself as the peace candidate, critics have warned voters not to be fooled.
“He’s a liar. C’mon, you know he doesn’t tell the truth at all,” Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)—the only member of either legislative chamber who voted against authorizing the so-called War on Terror in 2001—said in a recent interview with The Nation.
“Just look at his record, who he cozies up to in terms of dictators,” Lee added. “He wants more investment in the military budget. What his strategy is, is to create a more dangerous world.”
Nasser Kanaani, a spokesperson for Iran’s Foreign Ministry, speaks at a press conference in Tehran, Iran. (Photo: Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
A spokesperson for Iran’s Foreign Ministry called on Israel’s allies to “stop supporting and arming it.”
The Israeli military carried out a series of airstrikes on central Syria late Sunday, reportedly killing more than a dozen people and prompting a furious response from Syrian ally Iran.
“We strongly condemn this criminal attack,” Nasser Kanaani, a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, said during a press conference in Tehran.
Kanaani went on to urge Israel’s weapons suppliers, chiefly the United States and Germany, to “stop supporting and arming it” as its catastrophic assault on the Gaza Strip spills out across the region. Nearly 40 people were wounded in Israel’s strikes on Sunday, according to a Syrian health official, and several are in critical condition.
Initial reports of at least 14 people were killed and others injured this morning in an Israeli bombing in the community of Masyaf in Syria.
Citing two unnamed regional intelligence sources, Reuters reported early Monday that the Israeli strikes hit a “major military research center for chemical arms production located near Misyaf.”
The facility, according to Reuters, “is believed to house a team of Iranian military experts involved in weapons production.”
Kanaani denied that the facility hit was connected to Iran.
“What official sources from the Syrian government have announced is that there were attacks on some Syrian facilities, including an attack on a research center affiliated with the Ministry of Defense and the Syrian army,” he said.
Israeli forces have carried out dozens of airstrikes in Syria—including one targeting Iran’s consulate in Damascus—since the Hamas-led October 7 attack, which prompted Israel’s large-scale assault on Gaza.
Al Jazeera reported that Israeli forces continued to pummel the Palestinian enclave on Monday, bombing “al-Amoudi street in the Sabra neighborhood, south of Gaza City.” The outlet noted that “at least 10 people have been killed today in attacks across the Gaza Strip.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shakes hands with Rear Adm. David Saar Salama at the Ashdod Naval Base on October 29, 2023. (Photo: Office of Benjamin Netanyahu)
Instead of turning a blind eye to Israel’s behaviors that are deliberately designed to provoke more war, the U.S. needs to stop playing games and get serious about holding Israel accountable.
Why—in the midst of critical negotiations to implement U.S. President Joe Biden’s plan to bring about a cease-fire in Gaza, release Israelis held captive by Hamas and a significant number of Palestinians held by Israel, and move toward a negotiated permanent end to the conflict—would Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu decide to assassinate the chief Hamas negotiator while he was visiting Iran? And why—while the U.S. says it was working to deescalate tensions with Lebanon’s Hezbollah—would Israel choose to up the ante by assassinating Hezbollah’s number two?
We know the answers to both questions: Benjamin Netanyahu isn’t interested in peace. He doesn’t want a negotiated deal to release hostages and end the war on Gaza. He doesn’t want to deescalate the conflict there or in the north with Hezbollah. And he most certainly doesn’t want a “two-state solution” that would grant the Palestinian people independence in a sovereign state of their own.
There are two things Netanyahu does want, and, at this point, both are perversely connected. Above all, he desperately wants to remain in office, because should he lose his post as prime minister, the prosecution of the corruption charges against him will continue in full force. As the charges are so serious and the evidence so clear, he will likely be convicted and humiliated. This is not speculation—it’s widely discussed in Israel and was even hinted at by President Biden in a May 28 interview with Time Magazine. When he was asked “Is Netanyahu prolonging the war for political reasons?” Biden responded, “There is every reason for people to draw that conclusion.”
Why hasn’t the administration condemned the assassinations in Beirut and Iran when they know that they will surely sabotage the efforts of negotiators?
The second reason is that Netanyahu wants the war to continue and even be accelerated. He made this clear in his remarks before U.S. Congress and in an address to the Israeli public a few days ago. He seeks “total victory,” which he defines as more than the military defeat of Israel’s enemies. Without acknowledging any Israeli culpability, he charged that the Palestinians had created a hate-filled culture which in the post-war period would require massive deradicalization—the outcome of which would have Palestinians accepting Jewish hegemony in Eretz Israel and understanding their place as a conquered and subordinate people.
This is the messianic Zionist vision that has long driven Netanyahu and which he now sees as possible, but only if all of Israel’s enemies—meaning Iran and its surrogates—are brought to heel. And this can only be realized if Israel can involve the U.S. in their regional conquest.
Netanyahu’s worldview raises several additional questions that must be considered. If we know that Netanyahu has never accepted the terms of the Biden plan, why has the president continued to maintain that it was “Israel’s plan” and placed the burden on Hamas to accept it? And if we know that Netanyahu is unwilling to make any peace agreement for fear of losing his other extremist coalition partners (who have threatened to abandon his government should he accept any terms leading to peace), why do we continue to dance around that fact? Why hasn’t the administration condemned the assassinations in Beirut and Iran when they know that they will surely sabotage the efforts of negotiators? Why, when we know that Netanyahu has no intention of completing a deal to release those held captive, do we continue to allow him to exploit the pain of their families, pretending that negotiations are close to completion, when we know they aren’t? And why, when we know that the demands and actions of Netanyahu’s extremist coalition partners are wreaking havoc in the West Bank and Jerusalem—terrorizing the Palestinian population, annexing more land, building more settlements, and erasing the possibility of Palestinian self-determination—have we been so passive and tolerant in response?
Let’s be clear: Hamas and Hezbollah are not good actors. The former was born of the brutal and sustained Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. It was nurtured by Israel to create division in the Palestinian ranks and fueled by Israel’s ruthless decades-long strangulation of the population of Gaza. The latter was born of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon and by that country’s corrupt sectarian system that denied the Shia community adequate representation and resources. It was fueled by Israel’s decades-long occupation of Lebanon’s south and massive devastation of the country’s infrastructure in 2006. To be sure, both have engaged in condemnable actions. But to criticize only them, while absolving Israel of its far greater crimes, is hypocritical at best.
If the U.S. were serious about ending conflict in the region, instead of turning a blind eye to Israel’s behaviors that are deliberately designed to provoke more war, we need to stop playing games and get serious about holding Israel accountable. This leads to one final question: Why, when we continue to massively supply Israel with weapons and block all efforts to sanction their deplorable behaviors, do we expect that anything will change?
