Roundup

The New Neo Posted on by

(1) Was there anyone previously unaware of the leftist bias of NPR? If so, that person might want to read this exposé by a 25-year veteran of NPR.

(2) Biden hasn’t given up trying to purchase the votes of the young through unconstitutional means. What a guy:

Joe Biden just announced that he is pushing even further on ‘forgiving’ student loan debt to the tune of billions. When talking about the issue, Biden even acknowledges that the U.S. Supreme Court told him that he didn’t have the power to do this but that he is doing it anyway.

It’s past time to call this what it is. Joe Biden is trying to buy the votes of college students with our tax dollars.

The media is going along gleefully.

How many divisions does the Supreme Court have?

(3) Sheila Jackson Lee, astronomer extraordinaire:

… [S]ometimes you need to take the opportunity just to come out and see a full moon is that complete rounded circle, which is made up mostly of gasses.

And that’s why the question is why or how could we as humans could live on the moon. Are the gasses such that we could do that?

Lee tried to excuse herself by saying she meant the sun was made of gasses, not the moon. But there’s no way that her statement can be interpreted as referring to the sun.

(4) Did you know that Joe Biden is the perfectly moderate candidate and the Democrat Party is the perfectly moderate party? Yes, indeed:

The other problem with the No Labels operation is that there already is a moderate, bipartisanship-minded political faction in the United States. It is called the Democratic Party. For better or for worse, that party continues to be the home of nearly all of the remaining “institutionalists” in U.S. politics, and party leadership has repeatedly, over the past decade, passed up opportunities to engage in retaliatory procedural maneuvering in response to GOP constitutional hardball, preferring instead to stand up for a long-vanished consensus politics that has virtually no support on the other side of the aisle.

President Joe Biden not only leads that institutionalist party, but he is also its most vocal and successful backer of bipartisanship as a governing and political philosophy. During the 2020 campaign, he touted his record of reaching across the aisle when he was a senator, and as president he has signed an impressive array of bills with bipartisan support …

… Biden and Democrats have also repeatedly resisted tit-for-tat partisan escalation.

Much more of that sort of thing at the link.

(5) Amnesty International covers itself with shame [WARNING: horrific content coming up]:

One more thing about the hostages

The New Neo Posted on by

I can’t find definitive word on this, but I thought I’d mention it anyway: I don’t believe that any hostage who was a member of the military at the time he or she was taken on October 7 has been released by Hamas in any of the hostage/prisoner exchanges. I believe that, from the very start, Hamas put them in a different category than the civilian women and the children kidnapped from the NOVA festival and the kibbutzim. If you look at this list of the released hostages, you’ll see it consists entirely of women, those 18 and under, and foreign nationals such as Thais.

As far as the civilian men go, I think Hamas released only those under 18 who were from the kibbutzim. The older male kibbutzniks are either dead or still hostages, except for two elderly men who were rescued by the IDF.

As far as I know, the rest of the hostages were in the military, except for the Bibas family, who were residents of Nir Oz when kidnapped. Hamas says the Bibas family members were killed by an Israeli airstrike, which is what Hamas says about every dead hostage. The statement has no meaning. We don’t know whether they are actually dead or alive and we don’t know whether Hamas even knows, but my guess is that they are dead.

The point of this post, however, is to point out something I don’t see the press explaining, which is that the remaining hostages (except for the Bibas family) are in two major categories: military members and civilian men over 18. I believe (but cannot prove) that these two groups – especially the military – were singled out by Hamas for harsher treatment from the start. “Harsher treatment” can mean many things, including death. But Hamas was always going to keep these groups back and use them to bargain for the entire prize: the release of all Palestinian prisoners (numbering in thousands) held in Israel, the end of Israel’s offensive in Gaza, and the continuation of Hamas’ own powerful death grip on Gaza.

Biden does what we knew he’d do and calls for Israel to “just call for a ceasefire”

The New Neo Posted on by

Biden’s re-election is more important to Biden (and the Democrats) than anything else, to wit:

A day after Hamas indicated that it may have murdered most of the remaining hostages abducted on October 7, President Joe Biden is telling Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to “just call for a ceasefire” — unliterally and without linking it to the release of the captive Israelis.

“What I’m calling for is for the Israelis to just call for a ceasefire, allow for the next six, eight weeks, total access to all food and medicine going into the country,” Biden said in an interview with he Spanish-language TV channel Univision.

Biden also criticized Netanyahu for going ahead with the military operation against Hamas’s remaining terrorist fighting force in Gaza. “I think what he’s doing is a mistake,” he told Univision. “I don’t agree with his approach.”

That last quote should be reassuring to all Israel-supporters, because Biden has been so consistently wrong on every aspect of foreign policy – not just in his presidency but in his long career as senator – that if he disagrees with what Netanyahu is doing, it’s almost certainly a sign that Netanyahu is on the right path.

Here is what Bibi has to say:

We will complete the elimination of Hamas’s battalions, including in Rafah. No force in the world will stop us.

Israel’s very existence depends on it.

By the way, what does Biden (or his speechwriters) mean when he says the Israelis should just call for a ceasefire? Does he think Hamas would abide by it? Does he even know that a ceasefire was in place on October 7 when Hamas committed its massacre of Israelis?

And furthermore, why are the people of Gaza – the vast majority of whom supported that massacre and continue to do so, as well as wishing to see the destruction of Israel – so deserving of this sort of treatment in the middle of a war they started (with widespread warcrimes)?

Also:

A report claims Israeli officials are blaming the pullback of troops from Khan Younis and the surge in humanitarian aid reaching the Strip for the expected failure of hostage-truce talks in Cairo, saying Hamas won’t compromise after getting so much for free.

According to the Ynet news site, officials in Jerusalem think both moves “really hurt negotiations.”

“We gave up our strong bargaining chips for nothing,” and now Hamas’s position is even tougher to crack, Ynet quotes “Israeli sources” saying. “Hamas is digging in with its demands for an end to a war and a troop withdrawal, and is determined to play tricks with the mediators.”

For what its worth, my opinion is that Hamas was going to hold out anyway, until it got everything it wanted: all prisoners freed, a permanent ceasefire, and a guarantee of staying in power.

I hope that Biden’s repulsive behavior hurts his chances of re-election rather than helping him in November. His behavior certainly hurts everyone else – except Hamas and its allies.

Are all the hostages dead?

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s an unanswerable question. I ask it now because of this report:

On Monday, however, Israel’s Channel 12 news reported that Hamas was trying to negotiate the release of fewer hostages on the grounds it had “no ability to release 40” abductees who fit the initial request by Israeli negotiators.

Most of what is written on this topic is conjecture. No one knows, and I suspect that even Hamas doesn’t quite know (although it knows more than the rest of us) because some of the kidnappers were “free-lancers,” because the hostages have not been kept in a central location, and because they’ve been moved around so much by so many people. I do think we can safely say that many of the hostages are dead, at least nearly forty and perhaps many more; perhaps even all. My personal belief is that there are probably at least 50 still alive, but not necessarily in the categories of “woman, children, and the elderly and/or sick.” But I confess I really have no idea.

We do know that Hamas lies – perhaps it’s lying about almost everything.

We do know that Hamas has no interest in whether the hostages ultimately die, except that they are valuable bargaining chips.

We do know that Hamas wants and expects a great deal for the hostages: probably the release of all Palestinian prisoners, the cessation of all hostilities, and being kept in power, at the very least. Israel is highly unlikely to give in to all of that, despite intense pressure from its “friends” in the Biden administration and Europe.

We do know that in the past Israel has given Hamas a great deal for a single hostage, so Hamas feels encouraged to hold out for everything it wants.

ADDENDUM:

A few more thoughts –

It almost goes without saying that the hostages who are still alive (if there are any) have been and still are being sexually abused and tortured in various ways both imaginable and unimaginable, as well as starved. The younger women are especially likely to have been heavily sexually abused, but such abuse is almost certainly not limited to them.

It is also worth remembering that many of the remaining hostages are IDF soldiers, including the women, and thus might be expected to be treated particularly harshly by Hamas and other Palestinians. Some were already wounded when kidnapped and may have died of their wounds quite some time ago.

I assume Israel has some intelligence on all of this but that their knowledge of what has happened to each hostage is far from complete.

It is in Hamas’ interest to maintain the idea that many hostages are alive and/or that they don’t know how many are alive even if they do. As I said, hostages are bargaining chips to them. It is also in Israel’s interest to pretend to be willing to give up more than they actually are willing to give up in exchange for the hostages’ return, because if Hamas thinks Israel might actually release all prisoners and agree to a ceasefire, then Hamas is more likely to keep at least some of the hostages alive in order to make that happen.

But the world’s lack of concern about the barbaric crime of taking the hostages and their sadistic treatment while in captivity gives more power to Hamas to do whatever it wishes with them. And Israel’s prior lopsided hostage deals have made the situation worse because if Hamas got over a thousand prisoners released (including Sinwar) for one Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, it makes sense that Hamas would think that abducting over 200 hostages would give it almost unlimited power over Israel.

But it is also worth remembering that Shalit was held for five years and kept alive. I realize the situation is not especially analogous to that of the current hostages, but at least there is the fact that he was kept alive. Shalit also was the first captured Israeli soldier to be released alive in 26 years. Unless I’m mistaken, none of the October 7 hostages who have been released so far were soldiers. One female Israeli soldier was rescued by the IDF early on, however: Ori Megidish.

Jordan’s government and Hamas: not friends

The New Neo Posted on by

Here are some recent developments in the Arab world [emphasis mine]:

The intensive protests in Jordan against the war in Gaza are a source of concern for the Gulf states, which regard them as an attempt by Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) movement and Iran to agitate the masses and ultimately overthrow the Jordanian regime, as well as other regimes in the region.

Since Hamas’ October 7, 2023 terror attack in southern Israel and the outbreak of the ensuing war in Gaza, which has been ongoing for six months, Hamas officials, who are supported by the MB [Muslim Brotherhood] and Iran, have been calling on the people of Jordan to escalate the protests in the kingdom and join the fight against Israel by opening a front against it from this country. These calls increased the scope and intensity of the protests, which take place throughout the country but especially in the vicinity of the Israeli embassy in Amman, where thousands of young men gather every evening to “besiege the embassy building,” chanting slogans in praise of Hamas’ leaders and against the Jordanian king. Elements close to the MB have also called to stir up popular unrest in other Arab countries that maintain ties with Israel.

Both Jordan and its Arab allies, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and the Palestinian Authority (PA), accuse Hamas and its patrons – the MB and Iran – of using the war in Gaza to destabilize the Jordanian kingdom, overthrow its regime and even instigate chaos and a new “Arab Spring” in the region. As the protests in the kingdom intensified, Arab leaders stressed that they stand with their ally Jordan. …

This complete support for the Jordanian kingdom also found expression in many articles in the Saudi and Emirati press. … Other articles in the Saudi and Emirati papers attacked the leaders of Hamas, claiming that they are trying to destroy Jordan in order to cover up their defeat in the Gaza war, and warned about a plot by Iran and the MB to precipitate another Arab Spring in the region. Some articles even claimed that targeting Jordan would be regarded by its Arab allies as a declaration of war, and noted that Saudi Arabia and the UAE would act to defend the stability of the Jordanian regime.

Since October 7 we have read that many Arab states, while outwardly supporting the Palestinians, are supporting Israel behind the scenes. This is further evidence of it. They see Hamas, the Palestinians and their allies, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Iran as a threat to their own governments, and they are correct to do so. There is a long long history there, too long to go into in this post.

But I will mention one aspect of that history that involves Jordan. Remember the phrase “Black September”? Most of us Westerners of a certain age remember that it was used by the Palestinian group that perpetrated the horrendous 1972 Munich Olympics massacre of Israeli athletes that first shocked the world but ended up gaining much sympathy for the Palestinian cause (does that event trajectory sound familiar?).

But the term “Black September” had another meaning that was (and probably still is) well-known in the Arab world if not here. It refers to the 1970-1971 war in Jordan in which Palestinians attempted to topple the government and the government retaliated against them:

Black September, also known as the Jordanian Civil War, was an armed conflict between Jordan, led by King Hussein, and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), led by chairman Yasser Arafat. The main phase of the fighting took place between 16 and 27 September 1970, though certain aspects of the conflict continued until 17 July 1971.

… by early 1970, leftist groups within the PLO began calling for the overthrow of Jordan’s Hashemite monarchy, leading to violent clashes in June 1970. Hussein hesitated to oust them from the country, but continued PLO activities in Jordan culminated in the Dawson’s Field hijackings of 6 September 1970. This involved the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) seizing three civilian passenger flights and forcing their landing in the Jordanian city of Zarqa, where they took foreign nationals as hostages and blew up the planes in front of international press. Hussein saw this as the last straw and ordered the Jordanian Army to take action.

On 17 September 1970, the Jordanian Army surrounded cities with a significant PLO presence, including Amman and Irbid, and began targeting fedayeen posts that were operating from Palestinian refugee camps. The next day, 10,000 Syrian troops bearing Palestine Liberation Army (PLA) markings began an invasion by advancing towards Irbid, which the fedayeen had occupied and declared to be a “liberated” city. On 22 September, the Syrians withdrew from Irbid after suffering heavy losses to a coordinated aerial–ground offensive by the Jordanians. Mounting pressure from other Arab countries, such as Iraq, led Hussein to halt his offensive. On 13 October, he signed an agreement with Arafat to regulate the fedayeen’s presence in Jordan. However, the Jordanian military attacked again in January 1971, and the fedayeen were driven out of the cities, one by one, until 2,000 surrendered after they were encircled during the Ajlun offensive on 23 July, formally marking the end of the conflict.

Jordan allowed the fedayeen to relocate to Lebanon via Syria, where they later became involved in the Lebanese Civil War. The Palestinian Black September Organization was founded after the conflict to carry out attacks against Jordanian authorities in response to the fedayeen’s expulsion; their most notable attack was the assassination of Jordanian prime minister Wasfi Tal in 1971, as he had commanded parts of the military operations against the fedayeen. The following year, the organization shifted its focus to attacking Israeli targets and carried out the Munich massacre against Israeli athletes.

It’s a lot to digest and sort out, but the gist of it is this: Jordan and its allied Arab states have much reason to oppose the Palestinians and their allies because they know from bitter bitter experience that they are the target as well, not just Israel. And they are willing to kill a great many Palestinians to defend themselves. They and their allies are now issuing are a warning.

The time frame in the region is very long. The Black September events occurred over fifty years ago, but the issues have not substantially changed although some of the details have.

NOTE: Wiki can be unintentionally funny sometimes. When it says that the pugnacious Palestinians (using the old term “fedayeen”) “later became involved in the Lebanese Civil War” what it means is that, as with the Palestinians in Jordan, the country took them in and then the Palestinians proceeded to destabilize and try to topple the government of the host country. In fact, Lebanon has never been remotely the same since then, although Jordan has survived fairly intact.

Scotland: land of the unfree, home of the tattletales

The New Neo Posted on by

[Hat tip: commenter “Barry Meislin”]

Scotland’s new hate-speech law has drawn quite a reaction:

Entirely as predicted, Police Scotland has been deluged with vexatious and politically-driven ‘hate crime’ reports, with one top official complaining “we cannot cope.”

Under the new legislation, anyone deemed to have been verbally ‘abusive’, in person or online, to a transgender person, including “insulting” them could be hit with a prison sentence of up to seven years.

Is it real or is it Memorex? It appears to come from both sides of the political spectrum. Apparently some of the reports are woke complaints and some are people on the right trolling the authorities. Pity the poor poor police, who apparently have nothing better to do:

This followed a trial of a separate program set to be implemented across the country to stop investigating crimes like theft and criminal damage, which authorities acknowledge will help criminals.

These events are beyond any parody the Bee could cook up. Whatever happened to “sticks and stones”? Apparently it’s only old folks who recall the rhyme and what it means.

My partial eclipse photos

The New Neo Posted on by

Hot off the press.

I borrowed someone’s special glasses and looked for a moment when there was just a small crescent of sun. Pretty impessive.

But mostly I used a colander. That was fun, too. So here’s my self-portrait with eclipse-colander:

And here are some images projected from the colander onto a white paper which for some reason looks blue:

I noticed shadows of the bare tree branches were hyper-sharp. I’d never seen that before; anybody know why it happens? Here’s a photo of tree branch shadows on a white car:

It was incredibly sunny today, absolutely perfect for viewing.

Warning: Israeli products!

The New Neo Posted on by

I was in the supermarket a couple of days ago and noticed a display of Passover goods: matzoh, gefilte fish, macaroons, the usual.

And it struck me for the very first time in my life that somebody might deface it in some way with Jew-hating graffiti, although no one had yet done so.

And now I see the following, which is a more organized effort than what I had envisioned. But much of today’s anti-Semitism is quite organized, just like in the olden days in Germany:

And of course our government is just itching to get into the act:

The Biden administration is considering requiring labels on imported goods made by Israeli settlers living in the West Bank, according to a report by the Financial Times citing U.S. officials familiar with the plan.

According to the report, the Biden administration hasn’t determined the timing for the move or issued its final approval for the policy – though it almost announced it last month following the announcement of a large land seizure in the West Bank by Israel.

The administration reportedly views the label requirement as a means of ratcheting up pressure on Israel to tamp down violence by settlers in the West Bank, as well as to show frustration with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government amid Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza.

The FT reported that the labeling policy, if it’s approved and implemented, would come as a reversal of a 2020 policy advanced by the Trump administration that required goods made in the West Bank be labeled as “Made in Israel.”

The Trump administration’s policy itself was a reversal of a prior U.S. policy to label products made in the West Bank as being from there, rather than Israel. Prior to the Trump-era change, the Obama administration in 2016 reiterated the West Bank labeling requirements and noted that fines could be issued for non-compliance.

You can always count on Biden and Company to implement the Obama Doctrine.

ADDENDUM: Caroline Glick on “settler violence.”

Trump on abortion: leave it to the states

The New Neo Posted on by

Trump has taken an official position on abortion policy, which is that it should be left to the states to decide without any national policy. This is basically Dobbs, and it is in my opinion the correct legal stance. It won’t make most people on the more extreme ends of either side happy, but nothing he would have said would have done that either. I think his statement is the best thing he could have done politically, as well.

Here’s the gist of it:

Trump explicitly affirmed his support for in vitro fertilization (IVF) and he emphasized his support for states determining their own laws for abortion so long as there are exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.

“The states will determine by vote, or legislation, or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land – in this case, the law of the state,” Trump said. Many states will be different. Many states will have a different number of weeks…at the end of the day it is all about the will of the people.”