Monday, May 20, 2024

ICC Chief Prosecutor Seeking Arrest Warrants for Hamas leaders and Netanyahu





The Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, has announced his intention to pursue arrest warrants for Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Karim Khan, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), has announced plans to seek arrest warrants for several leaders, including Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar plus other Hamas leaders Mohammed Deif and Ismail Haniyeh along with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Israel’s Defence Minister Yoav Gallant of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Khan accuses these leaders of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The ICC statement accuses the Hamas leaders, Sinwar, and Deif, of murder charges as a crime against humanity, sexual violence, and taking hostages as war crimes while accusing and charging Netanyahu and Gallant of using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and intentionally attacking civilian populations.

Khan asserts there is sufficient evidence to hold these individuals accountable for war crimes since the start of Hamas’s war against Israel on October 7, 2023, and Israel’s responsive military actions in Gaza. He emphasized the severe and well-documented impact of starvation and collective punishment on Gaza’s civilian population and stressed the need for accountability for Hamas’s actions on October 7.

The ICC, based in The Hague, has been investigating Israel’s activities in Gaza for the past three years yet apparently not the activities of Hamas in Gaza since 2007?

The ICC/! CJ in their decision was Ultra Vires under law. The Montevideo Convention of 1933 outlines the criteria for statehood, which include a permanent population, defined territory, government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Palestine meets some of these criteria, but its full status remains contentious due to ongoing territorial disputes and the lack of a universally recognized government.

While Palestine is recognized as a state by some countries and has a certain level of recognition at the UN, it does not have universal recognition or full legal status as a sovereign state in the eyes of all international law or actors.

The pane overstepped its legal authority when it stated and based its ruling by agreeing with Khan’s assessment that the ICC has jurisdiction over the case since Palestine is a state party as per the ICC statute.

Palestine is NOT a State or a country therefore the ruling was Ultra Vires. (beyond the legal power or authority of the person performing an action)

Source:

WorldNews

Copy: 

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

https://legal.un.org/icc/statute/romefra.htm

Joe Biden’s Self-Serving, Race-Bating Political Speech “A Morehouse Man”


The guy who ran for office with a Unity Agenda, for solving big challenges that unite all Americans— yet his Presidency and actions of the past 3 and a half years have openly continued his political attempts to divide Americans for no other reason than to retain power for his far left-leaning Democratic Party, in my view and tens of millions of others.

(Race Bating) "It’s natural to wonder if democracy you hear about actually works for you.

What is democracy if Black men are being killed in the street?

What is democracy if a trail of broken promises still leave Black — Black communities behind?"

 What is democracy if you have to be 10 times better than anyone else to get a fair shot?

And most of all, what does it mean, as we’ve heard before, to be a Black man who loves his country even if it doesn’t love him back in equal measure?”

Summary of Joe Biden's Commencement Speeches for the Graduating Class of 2024:


  1. Joe Biden at Morehouse College:

    • Biden addressed students at Morehouse College, emphasizing that they are victims of racism and white supremacy.
    • He stated that American democracy has failed them, highlighting issues like police violence and systemic inequality.
    • Biden criticized efforts by parents to remove explicit pornography from school libraries as a book “ban” to “erase history” and implied it was racist. “They don’t see you in the future of America.”
    • His speech was described as negative and lacking constructive advice for the graduates. "It was a rancid, depressing speech that gave nobody in the audience wisdom or nourishment to help make their way in the world."

    • Copy of Joe Biden’s self-serving and race-baiting political speech “A Morehouse man”  @ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/05/19/remarks-by-president-biden-at-the-morehouse-college-class-of-2024-commencement-address-atlanta-ga/

       

  2. Dr. Anthony Fauci at Columbia University:

  • His speech to students about the tiny subset of the media that calls him out for his lies and complicity in the pandemic disaster. Fauci went on to tell Columbia’s Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons “During the past four years we have witnessed an alarming increase in the mischaracterization, distortion and even vilification of solid evidence-based scientific findings and of scientists themselves,”

  • Fauci is the guy who lied to the world when he said masks will stop you from getting COVID-19, and two masks are better than one.

  • Fauci lied to Americans and the world when he told us the COVID-19 shot would stop us from getting the virus or passing it on and swore that the virus didn’t come out of the Wuhan lab.

  • Fauci lied under oath to Congress and said the NIH did not fund Frankenstein's gain-of-function research. He and his underlings at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases covered up their funding of EcoHealth Alliance, which subcontracted the dangerous research to sloppy scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology where it most likely escaped and killed millions of people.

  • The day Fauci was at Columbia last week, EcoHealth finally saw its federal funding suspended for failing to adequately oversee the Chinese research. No kidding.

  • The day after Fauci’s speech, his ex-colleague, former NIH Acting Director Lawrence Tabak, contradicted him when he testified before the House Oversight Committee. Tabak said that Fauci’s outfit, NIAID, DID INDEED FUND gain-of-function research in Wuhan through EcoHealth Alliance.

  • “Sadly,” said Fauci, “elements of our society are driven by a cacophony of falsehoods, lies and conspiracy theories that get repeated often enough, that after a while, they stand largely unchallenged ominously leading to an insidious acceptance of what I call the ‘Normalization of Untruths.’ ”

  • That is what is defined clinically as “projection” practiced by sufferers of narcissistic personality disorder.

Source: 

https://nypost.com/2024/05/19/opinion/biden-fauci-and-butker-each-deliver-starkly-different-speeches-and-the-best-message-gets-vilified/

Saturday, May 18, 2024

The Radical Mega Republicans = Freed People



Unit Ten: Freed people and the Republican Party introduced the alliances and tensions between freed people and the Republican Party after emancipation. The Unit Ten educational documents listed on the left feature excerpts of various primary source documents and firsthand accounts that clarify these shifting political alliances in North and South Carolina.

The Radical Republicans were a group of politicians who formed a faction within the Republican party that lasted from the Civil War into the era of Reconstruction. They were led by Thaddeus Stevens in the House of Representatives and Charles Sumner in the Senate. 

The Radicals were known for their opposition to slavery, their efforts to ensure emancipation and civil rights for Blacks and their strong opinions on post-war Reconstruction. They were also critical of many policies of both President Abraham Lincoln and his successor, Andrew Johnson. Throughout the lifespan of the Radical Republican faction, they made enemies with Democrats, many former slave owners, the Ku Klux Klan, and often even found opposition from the moderate Republicans.

James M. Ashley, a Republican congressman from Ohio, made it clear to the crowd at Montpelier that he had violated the Fugitive Slave Law more times than he could count. He had actually begun helping slaves flee bondage in 1839 when he was just fifteen years old, and he had continued doing so after the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 made the penalties much stiffer. To avoid prosecution, he and his wife fled southern Ohio in 1851. Would he now mend his ways? “Never!” he told his audience. The law was a gross violation of the teachings of Christ, and for that reason, he had never obeyed it and with “God’s help . . . never shall.”

in December 1863, Ashley thought it was indeed “necessary” to strike a deathblow against slavery. He also thought getting a few pieces of his 1861 package into law was possible. So, just after the House opened for its winter session, he introduced two measures. One was a reconstruction bill that followed, at least at first glance, what Lincoln had called for in his annual message. Like Lincoln, Ashley proposed that a seceded state be let back into the Union when only 10 percent of its 1860 voters took an oath of loyalty.

The Senate Judiciary Committee then took charge. They ignored Sumner’s cry for racial justice and worked out the bill’s final language. The wording was clear and simple: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

On April 8, 1864, the committee’s wording came before the Senate for a final vote. Although a few empty seats could be found in the men’s gallery, the women’s gallery was packed, mainly by church women who had organized a massive petition drive calling on Congress to abolish slavery. Congress for the most part had ignored their hard work. But to the women’s delight, thirty-eight senators now voted for the amendment, six against, giving the proposed amendment eight votes more than needed to meet the two-thirds requirement.

All thirty Republicans in attendance voted aye. The no votes came from two free state Democrats, Thomas A. Hendricks of Indiana and James McDougall of California, and four slave state senators: Garrett Davis and Lazarus W. Powell of Kentucky and George R. Riddle and Willard Saulsbury of Delaware. Especially irate was Saulsbury. A strong proponent of re-enslavement, he made sure that the women knew that he regarded them with contempt. In a booming voice, he told them on leaving the Senate floor that all was lost and that there was no longer any chance of ever restoring the eleven Confederate states to the Union.

Now, nine weeks later, the measure was before the House. The outcome was even worse than Ashley had anticipated. “Educated in the political school of Jefferson,” he later recalled, “I was absolutely amazed at the solid Democratic vote against the amendment on the 15th of June. To me, it looked as if the golden hour had come, when the Democratic party could, without apology, and without regret, emancipate itself from the fatal dogmas of Calhoun, and reaffirm the doctrines of Jefferson. It had always seemed to me that the great men in the Democratic party had shown a broader spirit in favour of human liberty than their political opponents. Until the domination of Mr. Calhoun and his States-rights disciples, this was undoubtedly true.”

James M. Ashley a Republican Ohio Congressman (1859-1869) and the prime sponsor of the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery. He was more radical than President Lincoln but cooperated with him to round up the House votes for the amendment's approval in January 1865.

All thanks to Ashley and the Republican congressional leadership, the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution—which banned slavery in the United States—passed the Senate in 1864 and the House in 1865; it was ratified in December 1865.

Overview and Analysis

The Republican Party’s Unit Ten (Today's Maga Party in many ways) explored the complex relationships and evolving political dynamics between freed people; the Republican Party after emancipation and the solid Democratic Party position against the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It highlights the roles of key figures, such as Radical Republicans, in shaping post-Civil War America, particularly in North and South Carolina.

Radical Republicans

The Radical Republicans were a powerful faction within the Republican Party during and after the Civil War. Led by Thaddeus Stevens in the House of Representatives and Charles Sumner in the Senate, they were staunch opponents of slavery and champions of civil rights for freed people. They played a crucial role in Reconstruction, often clashing with both Democratic opponents and more moderate Republicans, as well as Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson. The Radical Republicans, were pivotal in the fight against slavery and the pursuit of civil rights for freed people. This faction within the Republican Party was instrumental during the Civil War and Reconstruction, finding themselves at odds with Democrats, former slaveholders, the Ku Klux Klan, and even moderate Republicans.

James M. Ashley's Advocacy

James M. Ashley, an ardent abolitionist and Republican congressman from Ohio, exemplified the Republican Party’s Radical Republicans' (Mega Today) commitment to ending slavery was unwavering.  He openly defied the Fugitive Slave Law and helped slaves escape bondage from a young age and was unwavering in his belief that such laws were morally wrong. In December 1863, he introduced significant measures in Congress aimed at Reconstruction and abolition mirroring President Lincoln's vision.

Legislative Efforts and Challenges

In December 1863, Ashley pushed for decisive action against slavery, aligning his proposals with President Lincoln's vision for Reconstruction. However, the path to legislative success was fraught with challenges. The Senate Judiciary Committee, disregarding Charles Sumner's appeals for racial justice, simplified the wording of the proposed abolition amendment.

Senate and House Votes

On April 8, 1864, the Senate passed the amendment with a significant majority, thanks to the efforts of church women who had rallied for its support. However, the House vote was less favourable. Ashley expressed his disappointment at the solid Democratic opposition, which he felt contradicted the party's historical stance on human liberty.

Triumph of Passage of the Thirteenth Amendment

Despite the obstacles, Ashley and the Republican leadership persevered. Their relentless advocacy led to the eventual passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery in the United States. The Senate approved it in 1864, followed by the House in January 1865, and it was ratified in December 1865.

Foot Note:

On May 22, 1856, the "world's greatest deliberative body" became a combat zone.  In one of the most dramatic and deeply ominous moments in the Senate's entire history, Democratic Representative Preston Smith Brooks, an American slaveholder, politician and Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives from South Carolina and a strong advocate of slavery and states' rights to enforce slavery nationally entered the Senate Chamber and savagely beat Republican Senator Charles Sumner, a Massachusetts antislavery Republican senator into unconsciousness.

Representative Preston Brooks was Butler's South Carolina kinsman.  If he had believed Sumner to be a gentleman, he might have challenged him to a duel.  Instead, he chose a light cane of the type used to discipline unruly dogs.  Shortly after the Senate had adjourned for the day, Brooks entered the old chamber, where he found Sumner busily attaching his postal frank to copies of his "Crime Against Kansas" speech.

Moving quickly, Brooks slammed his metal-topped cane onto the unsuspecting Sumner's head.  As Brooks struck again and again, Sumner rose and lurched blindly about the chamber, futilely attempting to protect himself.  After a very long minute, it ended.

Bleeding profusely, Sumner was carried away.  Brooks walked calmly out of the chamber without being detained by the stunned onlookers.  Overnight, both men became heroes in their respective regions.

The inspiration for this clash came three days earlier when Senator Charles Sumner, a Massachusetts antislavery Republican, addressed the Senate on the explosive issue of whether Kansas should be admitted to the Union as a slave state or a free state.  In his "Crime Against Kansas" speech, Sumner identified two Democratic senators as the principal culprits in this crime—Stephen Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of South Carolina.  He characterized Douglas to his face as a "noise-some, squat, and nameless animal . . . not a proper model for an American senator."  Andrew Butler, who was not present, received more elaborate treatment.  Mocking the South Carolina senator's stance as a man of chivalry, the Massachusetts senator charged him with taking "a mistress . . . who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight—I mean," added Sumner, "the harlot, Slavery." 

Surviving a House censure resolution, Brooks resigned, was immediately re-elected, and soon died at age 37.  Sumner recovered slowly and returned to the Senate, where he remained for another 18 years.  The nation, suffering from the breakdown of reasoned discourse that this event symbolized, tumbled onward toward the catastrophe of civil war.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOr5aIbJy1s

 

US Unable To Restrain UAE In Sudan



These summarized facts and comments on the key points present a comprehensive overview of the complex geopolitical landscape surrounding Sudan's conflict:

 

US Envoy's Warning and Humanitarian Crisis: The US envoy's warning underscores the severity of Sudan's humanitarian crisis. The high death toll and displacement figures highlight the urgent need for international intervention and effective conflict resolution.

 

Darfur Abuses: The resurgence of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity in Darfur is a grim reminder of the region's turbulent history. It emphasizes the need for sustained attention and action to prevent further atrocities.

 

UAE's Involvement and Economic Interests: The UAE's deep involvement in Sudan, driven by economic interests in gold mines and strategic geopolitical aims, complicates efforts to mediate the conflict. The support for RSF leader Hemedti links Sudan's internal strife to broader regional power dynamics.

 

Geopolitical Strategy and Iran's Influence: The alignment between the UAE and Russia, along with Iran's increasing influence, adds layers of complexity. Iran's supply of drones and anti-tank missiles to the SAF, and the potential for these weapons to reach the RSF, illustrate the intricate web of alliances and rivalries at play.

 

Potential Proxy War: The risk of a proxy war between Russian allies Iran and the UAE in Sudan is a concerning development. Moscow's attempt to balance its ties with both nations while maintaining influence highlights the fragile equilibrium in the region.

 

US Leverage and Diplomatic Shortcomings: The US's limited leverage over the UAE and reluctance to engage in robust diplomacy with Abu Dhabi reflect broader challenges in American foreign policy. The need to balance various geopolitical interests often hampers decisive action on specific conflicts like Sudan's.

 

UK's Position: The UK's focus on post-Brexit trade deals with the UAE, at the expense of addressing human rights violations in Sudan, demonstrates the tension between economic interests and ethical considerations in foreign policy.

 

Western Neglect of Africa: The growing influence of Russia and China in Africa, facilitated by Western neglect, underscores the shifting power dynamics on the continent. This neglect has created a vacuum that external powers are eager to fill, often to the detriment of local stability.

 

Future Concerns: Hemedti's forces' lack of self-sustainability compared to other UAE-backed groups raises questions about the long-term viability of Abu Dhabi's strategy in Sudan. The increasing reputational damage for the UAE in the West and the fractured geopolitical landscape suggest that Sudan's humanitarian crisis may worsen before it improves.

 

Overall, the situation in Sudan is a microcosm of broader geopolitical shifts, where local conflicts are intertwined with regional and global power plays. Addressing the crisis requires a multifaceted approach that considers the interests and actions of all involved parties.

Source:

Jonathan Fenton-Harvey is a journalist and researcher who focuses on conflict, geopolitics, and humanitarian issues in the Middle East and North Africa.

https://www.newarab.com/analysis/why-us-unable-restrain-uae-sudan


Tuesday, May 14, 2024

Navigating Aging: Understanding the Body and Mind's Journey



Aging encompasses a spectrum of changes across various bodily systems, influencing not only physical appearance but also internal functions. 

While wrinkles and graying hair may be expected, understanding the broader impact on teeth, cardiovascular health, bone density, gastrointestinal health, and urinary function is crucial for comprehensive well-being. Let's delve into what to anticipate with aging and how to foster good health across the lifespan.

Aging is an intricate journey marked by a series of transformations that affect our physical well-being and cognitive abilities. While visual signs such as wrinkles and graying hair are apparent, the deeper impact on bodily systems like teeth, cardiovascular health, bone density, gastrointestinal function, and urinary health are equally significant for holistic health. Here are some of the multifaceted aspects of aging and how to embrace it with vitality.

Cardiovascular Health:

As we age, the cardiovascular system undergoes changes characterized by arterial stiffening and increased strain on the heart, elevating the risk of conditions like hypertension. Prioritizing heart health involves integrating regular physical activity, maintaining a balanced diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and lean proteins, quitting smoking, managing stress, and ensuring adequate sleep.

Skeletal Strength:

Aging often leads to skeletal modifications resulting in reduced bone density and muscle weakening, which can affect coordination and balance. To counteract these changes, it's crucial to ensure sufficient calcium and vitamin D intake, engage in weight-bearing exercises, and avoid substances that can weaken bones.

Gastrointestinal and Urinary Health:

Age-related changes in the gastrointestinal tract may lead to issues such as constipation, influenced by factors like diet and exercise. Maintaining a fibre-rich diet, staying hydrated, and responding promptly to bowel movements can alleviate these concerns. Similarly, urinary function may be affected by bladder elasticity diminishing and muscle weakness leading to incontinence. Strategies such as regular urination schedules, weight management, and Kegel exercises can help manage urinary issues effectively.

Mind Matters:

The aging process also impacts cognitive function, with some experiencing subtle changes in memory and thinking skills. However, adopting certain lifestyle habits can support brain health, including regular physical activity, a nutritious diet, mental stimulation, social engagement, and managing cardiovascular risk factors.

Sensory Changes:

Vision and hearing changes are common with aging, necessitating regular checkups and precautions such as wearing sunglasses outdoors and using earplugs in noisy environments.

Oral Health:

Aging may lead to gum recession and increased vulnerability to decay, emphasizing the importance of maintaining good oral hygiene practices and scheduling regular dental checkups.

Skin and Metabolism:

Skin changes, including thinning and decreased elasticity, are common with age. Protecting the skin from sun exposure, staying hydrated, and using moisturizers are essential. Additionally, metabolism tends to slow down, making weight management more challenging, but regular exercise and a balanced diet can help maintain a healthy weight.

Sexual Well-being:

Sexual needs and performance may change with age, but open communication, regular exercise, and seeking appropriate medical treatments can support sexual health.

In conclusion, while aging is an inevitable part of life, proactive lifestyle choices can significantly impact the aging process. By embracing these changes and adopting healthy habits, individuals can navigate aging with resilience, vitality, and an enhanced quality of life.

Friday, May 10, 2024

Biden's 15 Lies in 17 Minute CNN Interview

In a brief 17 minutes, Biden told 15 lies — nearly a lie a minute.

From whoppers about the economy to prevarications on Israel, Biden spun a fantasyland of a presidency that voters know is false.

1. LIE 1: “I’ve created over 15 million jobs since I’ve been president.”

2. LIE 2: “Other than Herbert Hoover, [Donald Trump] is the only president who has lost more jobs than he created.”

3. LIE 3: “Look at what he says he’s going to do if he gets elected. Says he’s going to do away with what I’ve done on Medicare, reducing the price of Medicare.”

4. LIE 4: “You know we have 1,000 billionaires in America. Know what their average federal tax is? 8.3%.”

5. LIE 5: “We’ve already turned it around [on the economy].”

6. LIE 6: “The polling data has been wrong all along.”

7. LIE 7: “There’s corporate greed going out there. And it’s got to be dealt with.”

8. LIE 8: “[Inflation] was 9% when I came to office.”

9. LIE 9: “They have the money to spend. It angers them and angers me that they have to spend more.”

10. LIE 10: “Civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs, and other ways in which they go after population centers.”

11. LIE 11: “We’re not walking away from Israel’s security. We’re walking away from Israel’s ability to wage war in those areas.”

12. LIE 12: “It made no sense in my view to engage in thinking in Iraq they have a nuclear weapon.”

13. LIE 13: “You can’t only love your country when you win.”

14 LIE 14: “I travel around the world, other world leaders, know what they all say, 80% of them, ‘You gotta win. My democracy is at stake.’ ”

15. LIE 15: “Then [Trump] is going to put in a 10% tax that’s going to increase average Americans’ cost $1,500 a year.”

SOURCE:

https://nypost.com/2024/05/09/opinion/biden-tells-a-lie-a-minute-during-cnn-interview/

Monday, May 6, 2024

AMERICA and ISRAEL MUST DEMANDS UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER of HAMAS PLUS IMMEDIATE RELEASE OF ALL HOSTAGES

 



In my view, along with those of hundreds of millions of people worldwide, Joe Biden and his administration of appeasement of terrorists and terrorist-sponsoring and financing nations like Iran have shown weakness as opposed to strength and a lack of commitment and a dereliction of duty when it comes to upholding the constitution and the current USA policy that "The U.S. Government will make no concessions to individuals or groups holding official or private U.S. citizens hostage."

 

The unconditional surrender of Hamas would eliminate this terrorist group and reassure Americans and Israelis that their sacrifices in a total war would be compensated by total victory. Disarming Hamas and its terrorists was the start; consolidating democracy in Palestine is the goal. Only by refusing to deal with Hamas and its terrorist group could Palestine redesign root to branch as a democracy.

 

“Unconditional” offers a fresh perspective on how the decision to insist on “unconditional surrender” of Hamas is not simply a choice between pressing Hamas into submission and negotiating an end to the conflict for the Palestine people and the citizens of Israel. It also traces ideological battle lines that remain visible well into the atomic age as the enemy shifted from Palestine to Iran, Lebanon, and Syria.   Ironically, only through surrender can Hamas terrorists actually escape death. If they put down their weapons and become prisoners of war, Israel will be constrained by international law from killing these killers.

 

Calling for the unconditional surrender of Hamas would effectively dismantle this terrorist organization and provide assurance to both Americans and Israelis that their sacrifices in a comprehensive conflict would result in complete victory. The disarmament of Hamas and its militants marks the initial step; the ultimate aim is to establish a stable democracy in Palestine. By refusing to engage with Hamas and its terrorist factions, Palestine could undergo a complete overhaul towards democratic governance.

 

The "unconditional surrender" concept offers a new perspective on the decision to insist on Hamas's surrender. It's not just about pressuring Hamas into submission versus negotiating for peace; it also highlights the ideological battleground that persists, even in the modern era, as the focus shifts from Palestine to other regions like Iran, Lebanon, and Syria. Ironically, surrendering might be the only way for Hamas militants to escape death; by laying down their arms and becoming prisoners of war, they would be protected by international law, preventing Israel from executing them.

 

The failure of major powers, including the United States, and other interested nations to demand Hamas's surrender is disappointing, though not surprising. Many Western Nations, despite having the capability to compel Hamas's surrender, hesitate due to concerns about their Muslim populations and the growing influence of left-wing radicals, particularly in academic and urban centers, with an often misguided understanding of the conflict.

 

However, surrender is not an unfamiliar concept in conflicts. Throughout history, many significant wars have concluded with one party surrendering.

 

For instance, during World War II in January 1943, President Franklin Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Allied representatives convened in Casablanca to discuss war strategy. The outcome emphasized that only total victory over the Axis powers would be acceptable, encapsulated in the term "unconditional surrender."

 

During the remainder of World War II, there were no negotiations or arrangements with Germany, Italy, or Japan. The Allies remained committed to achieving unconditional surrender through military means.

 

This commitment came at a considerable cost, including civilian casualties such as those resulting from the atomic bombings in Japan. However, these actions led to Japan's unconditional surrender, bringing the war to a swift end.

 

The demand for unconditional surrender was not an obvious stance for Roosevelt and his allies, considering the armistice that ended World War I, which failed to prevent future conflicts.

 

The resurgence of Germany after World War I and the lessons learned from that conflict highlight the importance of total and unconditional surrender in establishing lasting peace.

 

Today, the same principle applies to conflicts involving Hamas and other terrorist groups. Just as Roosevelt and Churchill recognized the necessity of defeating the Nazis for global peace, rational actors today must support Israel in dismantling Hamas. Anything less would be a mere illusion.

 

While some argue that ideologies cannot be defeated militarily, history shows that ideologies like Nazism and Japanese imperialism were dismantled through force. Similarly, the toxic Islamist ideology of Hamas and its ilk can and must be defeated.

 

President Biden and other world leaders should demand and support Israel in securing the unconditional surrender of Hamas terrorists. This is the only viable solution to the Gaza conflict; anything less prolongs the suffering of innocent civilians, in my view and hundreds of millions of others worldwide.

Sources:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/dec/5/hamas-unconditional-surrender-is-only-solution-to-/#:~:text=Israel%20would%20no%20longer%20need,Hamas%20terrorists%20actually%20escape%20death.

7 FAM 1823  U.S. GOVERNMENT POLICY

(CT:CON-142;   07-26-2006)

The U.S. Government will make no concessions to individuals or groups holding official or private U.S. citizens hostage.  The United States will use every appropriate resource to gain the safe return of U.S. citizens who are held hostage.  At the same time, it is U.S. Government policy to deny hostage takers the benefits of ransom, prisoner releases, policy changes, or other acts of concession.  See 7 FAM 1821 e regarding U.S. Government policy and limitations on the role of Foreign Service posts and the Department of State should private citizens, organizations or companies elect to negotiate with hostage takers or pay ransom.