The relentless destruction of Gaza was documented by the five journalists killed in an Israeli attack on the Nasser Hospital. Despite the dangers, they remained aware of the effects the conflict had had on the population of Gaza. We briefly describe some of their work in this article.
I moved to New York in 1989, and was shortly afterwards writing about two completely unrelated characters – John Bolton and Donald Trump. That is why the FBI raid on John Bolton’s house and office ties together three decades of separate threads, at once disturbing and reassuring. One hopes they checked his bathrooms in their alleged search for classified documents, since those were the proven archivists’ choice for President Trump’s own stash. And maybe they should check whether Bolton still has a Signal account left over from his National Security days.
Despite their fervent equation of this with the search at Mar-a-Lago, it is significant that Trump had obfuscated for months about documents he was proven to hold, while no one had requested any such material from former National Security Advisor Bolton.
Shamelessly, much of the stenographic media straight-facedly parroted the administration’s risible claim that this search was to further a legitimate investigation. Only the most gullible of MAGA supporters believe this is anything but a gratuitous display of power. The move is meant to intimidate Bolton and send a warning to anyone in the Trump Clown Tent who is having second thoughts and considering blowing the whistle. Is there an Incitatus (Roman Emperor Caligula’s horse that he appointed as Consul) waiting in the stable of Trump nominees? We should be told.
Equally, only the most short-sighted of MAGA officials could think this will cow Bolton rather than spur him into even more vociferous thoughtcrime. I have interviewed him often over the years – and profoundly disagreed with him about issues from the United Nations to the Middle East – but he does not dissimulate: he is outspoken and free with his opinions.
Even Bolton’s most fervent ideological opponents must recognise that this ham-fisted harassment will only redouble his determination to expose Trump as not sporting the most beautiful suit of gold in the world. Although one has to say that if he were to don such an outfit, it would match the tawdry tinsel that bedecks the Trumped-up Oval Office.
As president of the Foreign Press Association, I’ve hosted several press conferences with Bolton and can attest that he says what he thinks rather than accommodating or pandering to the views of others.
They might as well have put a horse’s head in Bolton’s bed. This is simply a caution against disloyalty, on a par with how, once they seized power, the Bolsheviks began persecuting their own members and former allies for thoughtcrime. It is gratifying that Bernie Sanders is standing up for Bolton on this very particular point.
Indeed, it reinforces my conclusion that the GOP are the real Bolsheviks in American politics. While for decades Democrats have fought over individual spoils of office, the hard right has concentrated on the fruits of victory. They have sought and consolidated power at every level: school boards, state and local officials, and judicial appointments. They had an agenda waiting to be implemented as soon as Trump’s populist genius came into play.
I have written about Trump’s abject business failures and scams since the 1990s, bemused at how the press fawned over him. Almost 30 years ago, he secured the firing of financial analyst Marvin Roffman for showing how shaky Trump’s casino empire was – as was shortly demonstrated when it failed. In what became a familiar pattern, Trump litigated, lost and settled. But the details were buried under the recurrent amnesia of the media under such pressures. Trump has shown few signs of an overarching ideology other than rampant egoism, fuelled by his grab bag of prejudices and pet hates – exactly what we might expect from an underqualified, money-grubbing suburban son of a rich Nazi sympathiser.
But as Mao said about indoctrinating the peasantry, it was a blank sheet on which he could write the most “beautiful characters”. He is surrounded by scribes who are willing to map out a pointillist policy from all his scattered dotty prejudices, drafting executive orders that pander to his meandering megalomania while implementing their own much more structured and sinister programme. One doubts he picked up his love for the Confederacy from neighbours in Queens or even at Manhattan nightclubs, but some in his entourage have obviously persuaded him that it was a chic posture to adopt.
Trump does not follow a traditional conservative plan, nor one that connects the dots into any coherent whole. For decades, in their conservative phase, neoliberals who dominated the world’s financial institutions and governments ruined nations by insisting on the removal of tariff barriers and excluding government intervention from business. Trump’s populism turns that on its head, evoking nationalist, jingoistic and racist fervour to justify trade barriers and tariffs, celebrating the government taking part ownership of Intel and intervening directly on behalf of favoured corporations. Instead of nationalising the media, he co-opted their venal owners; instead of direct state control of institutions like universities, he browbeat compliant boards – which often overlap with his crony corporate world. The new rule is no longer the “too big to fail” principle abandoned in the Reagan-Thatcher years, but rather “too loyal to fail”.
In some ways, this is more worrying than an outright reactionary policy. He is not one for literary references, but two together seem to augur the future in works that epitomise the times even more than ever. Lewis Carroll, in a prescient discussion of the meaning of words, has Humpty Dumpty summarising: “The question is, which is to be master – that’s all.” And the purpose, in Stephen Miller’s convincing avatar of Orwell’s O’Brien in 1984, is clear: “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”
Those who come for your immigrant neighbour will come for you – just as they came for Bolton – and they will come for any critical media.
Trump made the baseless claim that the president has previously made in a social media post on Tuesday that Soros and his son Alex should be imprisoned for allegedly supporting violent riots in the US.
Trump suggested that they be detained under the federal law known as the “Rico Act,” which is frequently used to combat organized crime.
According to Trump, “George Soros and his wonderful Radical Left son, should be charged with RICO because they support violent protests, and many other things, throughout the United States of America,” the post read.
“Our Country has been severely harmed by Soros and his group of psychopaths”! Those West Coast residents who are crazy are also included. We’re watching you, so be careful.
Viktor Orban, the prime minister of Hungary, and Narendra Modi, the prime minister of India, have supported conspiracy theories that the Soros family had funded riots and politically destabilizing activity in their respective countries.
Trump himself cited that belief as an explanation for the public outcry he faced, including during his first term.
For instance, Trump claimed on social media that Soros was behind the protests against the incoming justice after he nominated Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court in 2018.
Trump wrote at the time, “The very rude elevator screamers are paid professionals who only want to make senators look bad.” Also, take a look at all the identical signs that were created by professionals. Soros and others paid for this. These are not “love signs” made in the basement!
As a Jewish Holocaust survivor, Soros has also been prominently featured in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
He is the founder of the Open Society Foundations, a non-profit organization that supports civil society organizations all over the world and promotes criminal justice, education, public health, and democratic governance.
Alex Soros’s elderly father, who is now 95 years old, was in charge of the foundation, according to The Wall Street Journal’s report from June 2023.
A justice department official claimed that three people, including the shooter, were killed and about 20 were hurt in a shooting at a school in Minneapolis.
Authorities in Minneapolis added that the shooter had been “contained” when they responded to a shooting at a Catholic church and school in the city’s south end earlier that day.
Governor Tim Walz wrote on X: “I’ve been briefed on a shooting at Annunciation Catholic School and will continue to provide updates as we get more information.”
If the shooting resulted in any casualties, how many and if so, how many.
Following a string of false reports of active shooters at US college campuses as students take a summer break, the confirmed shooting comes to mind.
Without giving specifics about potential victims, Walz said, “I’m praying for our kids and teachers whose first week of school was ruined by this horrific act of violence.”
The X shooting was confirmed by the municipal government.
“At this time, there is no real threat to the neighborhood.” The shooter has been put in a cage, according to Minneapolis City.
In a second post on X, the city stated that “the families of the school’s children can travel to the Annunciation School’s reunification zone.”
Hennepin Healthcare, the state’s largest emergency department in Minnesota, stated in a text message that it was actively responding to an emergency without providing any more information. The business stated in a social media post that it was taking care of the shooting victims.
Donald Trump, the president of the United States, described the shooting as a “terrible situation” and claimed he had been informed of it.
Trump stated on his Truth Social network, “I have been fully informed about the tragic shooting in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Julia Sebutinde, the vice president of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), has been subject to an investigation by the International Commission of Jurists.
The commission, which promotes the rule of law and human rights, claimed Sebutinde’s position on Israel raises questions of judicial integrity. Other critics also exist for Sebutinde, who is one of the 17 judges in the ICJ case involving Israel.
What Sebutinde said, why she received criticism, and more is revealed here:
Sebutinde is one of the judges hearing the case against Israel in South Africa. In January 2024, the same judges who voted on temporary measures to protect Palestinians in Gaza did the same.
Sebutinde, 71, is a judge from Uganda and has sat in the ICJ since March 2012 for her second term. She joins the ICJ, which is based in The Hague, as the first African woman. In February of this year, she was chosen as the top UN court’s vice president.
During the Ugandan independence movement, Sebutinde was raised by a modest family, according to the Institute for African Women in Law. She attended Gayaza High School, a girls’ boarding school, and Lake Victoria Primary School in Entebbe, Uganda. In 1977, she received her law degree from Makerere University.
Sebutinde received an honorary doctorate in 2009 for her legal accomplishments after receiving a master of law degree with distinction from the University of Edinburgh in Scotland in 1990.
She served as a judge on the Special Court for Sierra Leone from 2007 until she joined the ICJ.
South Africa claimed in a lawsuit filed in December 2023 that Israel was staging a genocide in Gaza as it broke out of the occupation of the country on October 7, 2023. Israel’s actions in Palestine were viewed as genocidal because they intended to “bring about the destruction of a significant portion of the Palestinian national, racial, and ethnic group” according to South Africa.
The ICJ rendered a decision regarding a number of interim measures on January 26, 2024. It issued six interim measures, instructing Israel to:
All the necessary measures were approved by 15 of the 17 judges who voted in favor of the adoption of the emergency measures. Two of the six measures that were to be implemented received a vote from an Israeli judge. The only judge to reject all the measures was Seputinde.
In her dissented opinion, Sebutinde wrote, “In my respectful dissenting opinion, the conflict between the people of Palestine and the State of Israel has largely historically been political.” A court may not resolve a legal dispute.
She added that South Africa failed to demonstrate that Israel’s alleged actions “weren’t motivated by the necessary genocidal intent” and fall under the purview of the Genocide Convention.
Final judgment will still be awaiting the court. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant were both wanted on arrest last year for war crimes, according to the International Criminal Court.
Israel’s actions in Gaza have been referred to as genocide by a number of human rights organizations. In addition to killing more than 62, 000 Palestinians during the nearly 23-month war, Israel has been accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity.  ,
The International Commission of Jurists, which is made up of 60 judges and attorneys in Geneva, requested the investigation in a letter to ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa on Friday. Sebutinde made the remarks on August 10 at the Watoto Church in Kampala, Uganda, referring to her statement that “The Lord is counting on me to stand on the side of Israel.”
According to Principle 2 of the UN’s Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, “the judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any… improper influences… from any source and for any reason,” the letter continued.
Sebutinde’s statements “inconsistent with these principles,” according to the letter, which was signed by Santiago Canton, the commission’s secretary-general.
Canton urged Iwasawa to launch an investigation into the allegations against Sebutinde and take appropriate legal steps if the allegations were to be confirmed.
Canton requested that Iwasawa forbid Sebutinde from the ICJ case filed by South Africa while an investigation is being conducted.
Uganda’s government took a stand against her dissention.
Adonia Ayebare, Uganda’s ambassador to the UN, wrote on X in January last year that “Justice Sebutinde’s decision at the International Court of Justice does not represent the Government of Uganda’s position on the situation in Palestine.”
According to the ICJ statute, members of the organization can’t be fired unless other members have voted in favor of them no longer meeting the requirements.
The ICJ registrar issues a formal notification to the UN secretary-general, leaving the position vacant.
This has never occurred, according to the ICJ website.
The website establishes criteria for its judges, stating that they must be chosen from among those of high moral character, have the necessary credentials to be appointed to the highest judicial positions, or be jurisconsultants with recognized international legal expertise.
A Member of the Court is neither a delegate to any other State’s government nor to any other nation, according to the article’s further adage.
Members of the ICJ must make a solemn declaration that they will exercise their powers impartially and conscienciously before taking on their duties there, according to the ICJ statute.
The UN Security Council and the General Assembly both elect 15 judges for nine-year terms.
An Israeli judge and a judge from South Africa joined the bench in the case against Israel. Senior retired judge Dikgang Moseneke from South Africa joined the case from Israel, while former chief justice of the Israeli Supreme Court, Aharon Barak, a former Israeli Supreme Court official, joined.
President Emmanuel Macron criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for blatantly fueling anti-Semitism, calling the remarks “an offence to France as a whole.”
In a letter released on Tuesday in several newspapers, the French leader responded to Netanyahu’s criticism of his country’s recent accusations against him as “unacceptable” and warned that the fight against anti-Semitism “must not be weaponized.”
Macron wrote in the letter that inaction in the face of a scourge that “we are fighting with everything in our power” is unacceptable and offences France as a whole.
“Antisemitism must not be a weaponized, and it must not lead to any hostility between France and Israel,” he said.
The French leader pleaded with Netanyahu to end the “murderous and illegal permanent war” in Gaza, saying it was “causing injustice to your country and impoverishing your people.”
Since last week, Netanyahu accused Macron of stoking “the anti-Semitic fire” in France by proposing to grant Palestinian statehood, which has since become a diplomatic tussle.
A letter that claimed anti-Semitism had increased in France since Macron’s recent announcement to recognize Palestine as a state at a UN General Assembly meeting the following month contained the accusation.
The French president’s office responded by labeling the statement as “inaccurate” and “erroneous.”
The French presidency stated last week that “this is a time for seriousness and responsibility, not for conflation and manipulation,” adding that it was unacceptable to use violence against the Jewish population and that France “protects and will always protect its Jewish citizens.”
After Charles Kushner, the ambassador to France, published an open letter to Macron in The Wall Street Journal on Sunday, echoing the claim that France was failing to take sufficient action against anti-Semitism, the row has grown even more enticing.