Hezbollah, Lebanon, Iran, and Israel

The New Neo Posted on by

First, here’s Caroline Glick:

Today’s news is that Israel has struck an area said to be Hezbollah’s and leader Nasrallah’s headquarters. The former seems to be true, although the truth of the latter – and any resultant damage to Nasrallah himself – is unknown. Here is an article from Axios regarding Nasrallah and the attack:

Israel conducted an airstrike on Friday targeting Hezbollah’s central headquarters in Beirut in an apparent attempt to kill the group’s leadership. …

Israeli officials say senior Hezbollah officials were at the headquarters at the time of the attack. There has been no official response so far from Hezbollah on the attack or on Nasrallah’s status. The Israeli source said the Israel Defense Forces did not yet have confirmation of whether he was hit. …

IDF spokesperson Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari described the attack as a “precise strike on the central HQ of Hezbollah, which was intentionally built under residential buildings in Beirut in order to use them as human shields.” …

An Israeli official said Israel notified the U.S. minutes before the strike in Beirut, but two senior U.S. officials denied that, telling Axios they had no prior warning.

If I had to guess, I’d say that Israel was targeting the entire Hezbollah leadership and Nasrallah would be included in that. Note also that Hezbollah uses the same modus operandi as Hamas – that is, the use of headquarters and operations underneath civilian structures, the better to be able to talk about innocent casualties at Israel’s hands and/or to deter Israel from striking in the first place.

And of course Israel wouldn’t tell the US in advance, because of the risk of sabotage through leaks. This administration has made its opposition very clear. Not only that, but this announcement was made Wednesday by the US: “the U.S. military is not providing intelligence support to Israel for its operations in Lebanon.” So I see no reason Israel should provide any intelligence about the planned strike to the US.

The Axios article adds:

Friday’s attack is another clear escalation from Israel and suggests Netanyahu’s government has little interest in a ceasefire.

And yet there’s no mention in the article of just why that might be – nothing about the fact that Hezbollah has been sending rockets into Israel on a daily basis since October 8, has been “escalating” its own forces in readiness for a huge attack on Israel, and that between 60,000 and 100,000 Israelis have been forced out of their homes for nearly a year and many of those homes have been destroyed by Hezbollah.

What else is missing from the article? Why, it’s the word “Iran.”

Lastly, it becomes quite apparent that Israel could have done this sort of thing previously. It doesn’t seem to lack for intelligence on Hezbollah, to say the least. But it has desisted because of world opinion and its own desire for peace and not to “escalate” things. But now Israel and its leaders have been made well aware that this is no way out but preemptive actions of this nature, because this really is that sometimes-overused word: an existential battle.

Kamala gave an interview to a friendly MSNBC reporter …

The New Neo Posted on by

… and it was still awful. You can see many articles about it: for example this from Legal Insurrection, this at RedState, and this from Ace.

Ace quotes a NY Times: article:

Here are three takeaways from Ms. Harris’s interview.

Ms. Ruhle’s first question was about how Ms. Harris might respond to people who hear her proposals and say, “These policies aren’t for me.” The MSNBC host’s second was about why voters tend to tell pollsters that Mr. Trump is better equipped to handle the economy.

Ms. Harris responded to the fairly basic and predictable questions with roundabout responses that did not provide a substantive answer.

Instead of offering any explanation for why Mr. Trump polls better on the economy — a matter that has vexed Democrats as President Biden has overseen a steadily improving economy — Ms. Harris instead blasted Mr. Trump’s record. She blamed him for a loss of manufacturing and autoworker jobs and said his tariff proposals would serve as an added sales tax on American consumers.

She said nothing about why voters think Mr. Trump and Republicans would be better on the economy.

But she did say her policies are for everyone. …

A hard-hitting Harris interview is still yet to come.

Since Ms. Harris began granting more interviews in recent days, her media strategy has been to sit with friendly inquisitors who are not inclined to ask terribly thorny questions or press her when her responses are evasive.

Nothing about that changed during her interview with Ms. Ruhle before her audience on MSNBC, the liberal cable channel whose viewers overwhelmingly favor Democratic candidates.

It’s not quite clear what Ms. Harris gained, aside from giving her campaign aides the ability to say she held a one-on-one cable television interview.

For the vice president, speaking with Ms. Ruhle was roughly in the same ballpark as Mr. Trump having one of his regular chats with Sean Hannity of Fox News.

Remember, that’s from the NY Times. And no, the Times isn’t withdrawing any support from Harris; the writers there are probably just frustrated that she’s so bad at this. They may labor under the delusion (at least, I think it’s a delusion) that if she were to face more interviewers who actually challenge her, she’d give more persuasive and detailed answers that might sway more undecided voters. There is no indication that’s the case. If Harris had answers to the hard questions, she’d be giving them, instead of mouthing convoluted platitudes mixed with lies.

Those Harris supporters who hate Trump – and that’s most of them – could not care less in terms of their own votes for Harris, which are solid no matter how vapid or mendacious she is. Their excuse – which I’ve seen explicitly stated – is that Trump is worse. Period, end of discussion.

I got rid of the useless “preview” tab

The New Neo Posted on by

I kept the plugin for “preview” activated because I kept hoping it would kick in and function properly some day as the version of WordPress got updated. But time after time, updates had no effect. So I’ve de-activated preview – pulled the plug on the plugin – and you should no longer see the “preview” tab at all.

It’s independent of the “edit” function, which should still be working fine.

Why was Eric Adams indicted?

The New Neo Posted on by

I suppose it could be because he was corrupt. In the olden days, I would have thought that was the reason. But a great great many corrupt people in public life aren’t indicted. So why would the current DOJ indict Eric Adams, New York’s mayor?

My first thought – and my second and third – was that he ruffled the wrong feathers. That’s Adams’ contention as well: “the defiant chief executive claimed he was being persecuted by the federal government for speaking out about the city’s migrant crisis.” He also claims to be innocent. But both things – that he’s being prosecuted for speaking out against the migrant crisis, and that he’s guilty – can be possible.

As with many news stories in the US, the British papers seem to have a lot of information:

Adams has came under fire in the past for questionable donations to his 2021 campaign from associates of the Turkish government.

The New York Times reports that Adams’ dealings with Israel, China, Qatar, South Korea and Uzbekistan are also under the federal microscope.

His indictment on Wednesday comes after a turbulent month of investigations and subsequent resignations from senior members of the NYC government.

The article points out that the investigations started after Adams criticized the influx of “migrants” to the city. A host of resignations followed the investigations.

[Adams] also faces at least three challengers in the 2025 Democratic primary, if he plans to seek reelection.

More federal investigations and resignations have ensued since, spurring Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to demand Adams to resign on Wednesday night.

Why, fancy that. AOC has an opinion.

More on the indictment’s details:

New York City Mayor Eric Adams has been indicted on five federal charges related to bribery, wire fraud, conspiracy and soliciting campaign contributions from foreign nationals, according to a 57-page indictment unsealed Thursday morning.
The indictment alleges illegal actions stretching back to 2014, from when he was Brooklyn Borough President.

“For nearly a decade, Adams sought and accepted improper valuable benefits, such as luxury international travel, including from wealthy foreign businesspeople and at least one Turkish government official seeking to gain influence over him,” the indictment reads.

Specifically, he received luxury travel and other benefits from a Turkish official and later pressured the NYC Fire Department to open a Turkish consular building without a fire inspection in exchange, the indictment says. …

In 2018, when Adams had announced his plans to run for New York City mayor, he allegedly accepted and sought illegal campaign contributions to his upcoming mayoral campaign, the indictment says.

Businesses also circumvented the city’s ban on corporate contributions “by funneling their donations through multiple employees,” according to the indictment.

This is the sort of thing I imagine is standard operating procedure with many government officials – and their families, including the Biden family, whose largesse from corruption is alleged to have included Joe Biden as a beneficiary (from the evidence of Hunter’s laptop as well as all those payments to distant family members).

Adams’ replacement would be “Jumaane Williams, a progressive Democrat.” In this case, “progressive” is code for “far far far left”:

NYC Public Advocate Jumaane Williams, 48, who has protested against the police, is next in line for the mayor’s office – and exactly the kind of Democrat that far-left progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have been dreaming of to run the nation’s biggest metropolis.

He would replace Adams temporarily, until there is a special election 80 days after the change of power, sparking fears among New Yorkers that things could go from bad to worse in the city.

‘A wounded Eric Adams, a weakened Eric Adams remaining in office, is better than the socialist Jumaane Williams,’ former mayoral candidate Curtis Sliwa told DailyMail.com. ‘That will open up the floodgates to socialism, and we will become Chicago.’ …

During 15 years in public service, Williams has stoked anti-police sentiment and pushed for criminal reform, including to end solitary confinement in city prisons. He is also a prominent pro-Palestine activist. …

He also threatened to refuse to sign a warrant authorizing the collection of real estate taxes, which underpin the city’s budget.

Adams was elected as being the more moderate Democrat of several contenders, and a defender of the police (relatively speaking). But Williams most definitely is not. Will Adams resist the pressure to resign, at least until elections in June?

Things I’ve noticed lately

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s getting darker earlier. I hate that.

It’s getting a mite colder, too. That, I don’t mind. In fact, I rather like the change.

I’m getting more tired of cooking and more into eating prepared foods. These Power Bowls aren’t bad.

As my car gets older – it’s a 2010 Ford Fusion SEL – my car insurance goes up. And I’ve got all those special discounts already: I don’t drive all that many miles per year, for example.

A lot of my friends are ill right now, and I don’t just mean the flu. Parkinson’s, heart problems, cancer.

In the past couple of weeks, I’ve been having a recurrent dream about Gerard. It’s now over a year and a half since he died, so I was initially puzzled about why I’d be having these dreams at this point. In the dreams, I suddenly realize I haven’t heard from him in a long long time. In the dreams it’s not because he died, it’s because he’s angry with me or is just moving on. In one of them, I catch sight of him in the grocery store from afar, and he looks fine. In the others, I’m just trying to figure out why he would have stopped calling me, when we used to speak just about every day. I think the dreams are a form of denial of his death, and they are connected with the fact that I’m about to start selling his essay book on November first.

Milei of Argentina gives the UN a piece of his mind

The New Neo Posted on by

Milei of Argentina has been making waves both within Argentina and without. I’ve written about him quite a few times before, in these posts.

Tuesday Milei addressed the UN General Assembly, which was fresh from its recent attack on Israel for having the temerity to defend itself. This is some of what he said

Milei focused on the 42-page “Pact for the Future” adopted by the UN on Sunday, which includes points promoting climate action, gender equality and regulation of artificial intelligence.

“Argentina will not back any policy that implies the restriction of individual freedoms or trade, nor the violation of the natural rights of individuals,” Milei said. “We invite all nations of the free world to join us, not only in opposing this pact, but in the creation of a new agenda for this noble institution: the freedom agenda.”

I wonder which nations still belong to the free world. There’s been a lot of attrition lately.

More here:

In his address to the General Assembly, Milei praised the organization’s original goal of pursuing world peace, but warned that it has mutated into a “multi-tentacled leviathan” that imposes a socialist agenda on its members. “It has been replaced by a supranational governance model of international bureaucrats who seek to impose a certain way of life on the citizens of the world. What is being discussed this week here in New York is nothing other than the deepening of this tragic course that this institution has adopted,” he stressed. …

…[Milei] explained why he is turning his back on the sustainable development agenda included in the Pact for the Future and the 2030 Agenda. He believes that they propose to “solve the problems of modernity with solutions that infringe on the sovereignty of nation states and violate people’s right to life, liberty, and property.” …

… “A toxic relationship has been promoted between global governance policies and international credit organizations, requiring the most neglected countries to commit resources they do not have to programs they do not need, turning them into perpetual debtors to promote the agenda of the global elites.”

The El Pais article from which I got those quotes is very down on Milei, pointing out his ostracization from the many other countries that are fine with the “global governance” program. To me, that’s not a mark against him.

Milei has steered Argentina on a pro-Israel course as well, and in his UN speech he added this on that matter and other flagrant hypocrisies committed by that organization:

“In this same house, we, that purports to defend human rights, we have also included bloody dictatorships in the Human Rights Council, including Cuba and Venezuela without reproach,” Milei said.

“In this same house, which purports to defend the rights of women, we’ve allowed on the CEDAW Committee countries that punish their women just for showing their skin,” Milei added.

“And this same house has voted against the State of Israel, which is the only country in the Middle East to defend liberal democracy.”

Milei is telling the emperor himself that the emperor is stark naked. But the emperor could not care less.

Whatever happened to that old-fashioned word, “defeat”?

The New Neo Posted on by

Now we have “extinguish”:

Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo accused Trump of spreading “another lie” about Harris during an interview on MSNBC Tuesday. But what was really shocking was her chilling choice of words.

“How did we get here?” Raimondo asked, before declaring, “Let’s extinguish him for good. We have an answer — a remarkably talented candidate in Harris.”

Then of course there’s the use of the remarkably untrue phrase “remarkably talented candidate” to describe Kamala Harris.

But what of “extinguish him for good”? In and of itself it wouldn’t be so bad, although I don’t think it’s a common phrase in politics. However, from the very start of Trump’s presidency the language of his opposition has been eliminationist – and not just the language but the graphics and visuals as well, in some instances. The idea of his assassination being a good thing was normed way before Raimondo did her bit.

I have never before heard so many ordinary people refer in casual speech to wanting a president dead as I’ve heard regarding Trump. The assumption seems to be – as Routh’s son said – that hatred of Trump is what “every reasonable person” feels.

I also recall that, almost from the start, a MAGA hat was demonized as the mark of a racist. This sort of claptrap was not new; it had been leveled at Tea Partiers – “with no evidence,” as the left is so fond of saying about other subjects. So not just Trump but anyone who supports him was regarded as evil.

The idea that Trump is uniquely and intensely dangerous not just to Democrats but to our democracy and America itself has been hammered home (is that too violent an image?) even by those at the top of the Democrat power structure (or seemingly at the top): President Biden and Kamala Harris:

And yes, Trump himself has called Harris a threat to democracy. I think his rhetoric is more reactive, although – and for whatever reason, people on the right haven’t seen it as a call to action, nor do I hear or see much rhetoric about assassination of Democrat candidates coming from the right. I’d like to keep it that way.