Saturday, May 9, 2026
Home Blog Page 39

Princess Margaret and I bonded over being rebels

0

The first high-profile person I ever met was Cesar Chavez, an encounter that affected my whole life.

He was a civil rights activist, the co-founder of the United Farm Workers, and he was visiting Toronto in 1973 when I was 17 to urge Canadians to boycott California lettuce and grapes. I spent all day outside the local grocery store raising money to donate to his cause. I only collected $100, but my dad—a union man—gave me an extra $50.

That night, I approached Chavez with my $150 and apologized for raising so little. He told me that $150 was more than they had that morning, and it could feed two families for a week. It’s the equivalent of $700 today.

That moment marked how I have raised money throughout my life. It was a lesson that I’ve kept with me in all my fundraising efforts, telling those who donate how their money is spent and how their donations directly benefit people.

I am a producer, activist and philanthropist, but most of all, I am a volunteer. I started as an entrepreneur in the home video business and have published some of the best-read magazines in the country for the past 42 years, including Famous, Cineplex, and Star Cineplex magazines.

For my entire life I have wanted to do good by other people. During my early childhood in Lebanon, if somebody who came to the house was hungry, my mom and my grandparents would sit them down and feed them. They made sure our visitors went away with whatever they were baking or was in the pantry.

They always gave them little pillowcases full of goodies, homemade jams, or sauces. It instilled in me a sense of altruism, and the lesson that whatever you can do in any way has the ability to help make someone else feel better.

In 1980, my brother George started the first home video store in Canada. We had worked at a student newspaper in university, and after a short-lived attempt at archaeology, I dug into journalism instead. We published the first video magazine in Canada, called Videomania.

Later we started Premiere, which was all about movies, but never overly critical. Everybody has different views; we told you what was coming out, who’s in it and what was good about it, from our point of view. It was a hit with a lot of readers.

In 1989, I was sent to an area of Rexdale, where I grew up, to interview Matthew Broderick, who was hot off of Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. But when I arrived, I happened to run into Marlon Brando. I mean, what are the chances?

We started talking and he asked me where to get good Lebanese food in Toronto. “At my mom’s house,” I said.

My parents’ home was just five minutes from where he had been filming, and we ended up having a barbecue there. My mom made my favorite dishes, but of course she didn’t get out the good china—she never did for anybody, and anyway, she didn’t even know who Brando was!

Brando wasn’t the only celebrity who would taste my mother’s dishes. Ella Fitzgerald had performed in Lebanon in 1971, and when she performed at Toronto’s Imperial Room, she asked the same question—where could she get good Lebanese food.

I had met Ella through a mutual acquaintance—the publicist, impresario, and all-around colorful character Gino Empry, who helped manage her in Canada. But I didn’t know that Ella was Ella Fitzgerald back then.

She played two sets a night in this beautiful old cabaret room, to 400 or 500 people, but wouldn’t want to eat before performing. For a whole week, I would take her these little Tupperware dishes of food made by my mom.

At one point, after my dad died and my family and I moved into the same apartment building, we had a group of people over for dinner. Mom was more interested in Kim Cattrall than in meeting Salman Rushdie.

I wanted to serve a few vegetarian Indian dishes, but Mom came over with a huge pot of traditional Lebanese food, which you just could not serve at a party, but that meal became Salman’s favorite thing to eat.

By 1991, Princess Diana was coming to little old Toronto. National treasure June Callwood, patron saint of many charities and founder of one of the country’s most prominent AIDS hospices, Casey House, had heard rumors of a planned Canada visit by Princess Di and was therefore going to phone the prime minister’s office to turn the screws.

I have been active in the gay community for 50 years, and had fought with June when she aligned the AIDS hospice with the city’s largest Catholic hospital. I told her I knew that the local cardinal, Gerald Emmett Carter, upheld the church’s homophobic values. But June replied that every hospital in town had turned her down.

“The cardinal may be a homophobe, but not the doctors and nurses,” she said. I thought she was out of her mind.

But, at the announcement a few months later that Diana would come to Casey House, I sent June the biggest flower arrangement I could afford.

I went there that day, but I didn’t dare try to say hello. Instead, I watched from far across the street. I did my best impression of Barbara Stanwyck in Stella Dallas, teary-eyed, with her face pressed against that wrought-iron fence.

While I’m not a royalist, one must acknowledge the profound impact Diana had at the height of the AIDS epidemic. Gloveless, she asked to shake hands with an HIV-positive man at a time when many believed, incorrectly, that you could “catch” the disease just through proximity.

While I didn’t speak with Princess Diana, I did spend an afternoon sitting next to Princess Margaret at a luncheon.

It was 1988 and the Variety Club was marking the Countess of Snowdon’s opening of a new aquatic wing at Variety Village. I was on the board and one of their top fundraisers.

Maybe they chose me to sit next to her because we were equally rebellious. I didn’t think it was a big deal. You can call yourself a duchess or you can call yourself blue cheese; I don’t believe in royalty, period. I respect everybody.

Margaret, however, broke the mold. I was wrong about her. I saw that she simply had to do what “The Firm” told her to do, yet she managed to do it her way, in her own inimitable style, and that was what made dining with her that day such a pleasure.

We had lovely conversations about different things. She thought the food—cold salmon atop salad greens, dressing on the side, white rolls and boiled asparagus—was the same old food she got everywhere else, and wanted to go outside and have a cigarette.

At no point did it seem like she was required to be there. She appeared to be really into it, and was having fun. The facility featured a huge pool for disabled children, and Margaret was incredible with the young people she met that day. Despite being rushed around at each moment, she took the time to speak to the children, even giving the flowers she received to a young woman in a wheelchair.

I don’t think my rebellious streak has changed much. Whether it be ignoring meticulous grammatical rules when learning English as a third language, or being active in AIDS marches, I’ve always thought rules were made to be broken, in a way.

I think celebrities respected me because I knew that whatever their profession was, was just that. It wasn’t who they were. For me, the important thing was what they did with their fame. How do you use your celebrity to try and change things?

For example, in my eyes, Doris Day was one of the most misunderstood stars of her time. She was a box-office star, but I wanted to meet her because of my affection for all the things she’s done.

The “Doris Day Show” had an openly gay couple on it. She hugged Rock Hudson when he had AIDS, and went on the Christian Broadcast Network after he died to say that if there was a heaven, he would be in it—which is amazing.

We held these tributes to lifetime achievements in the video industry, which meant I met many celebrities when they were at the end of their careers, often when they were being dismissed by then, from Ginger Rogers to Jimmy Stewart.

In my memoir, First to Leave the Party—which examines my unconventional life through the lens of the encounters I have had with extraordinary people over the years—I wanted to shine a light on these individuals, many of whom have been misunderstood or even forgotten.

I wanted to be balanced. I believe people sometimes are built up to a point where you forget they’re real, and you don’t concentrate on what they’re doing with their lives and how they’re changing things for the better. It becomes a type of worship.

Whereas I think that everybody is important, and therefore, no one is really very important. I have never fawned over celebrity or acted in a different way if a celebrity suddenly endorses something.

If I could share an overarching message, it would be to think about how you treat people. Consider how important relationships are and behave in the right way. How it’s empowering to respect boundaries and have your own.

And to anyone queer out there, we’ve been here before. It gets better.

Never lose hope.

Salah Bachir is a Canadian business executive and philanthropist. His upcoming memoir First To Leave The Party; My Life with Ordinary People Who Happen to be Famous will be released October 17 and is available for pre-order on Amazon.

All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

As told to Newsweek’s My Turn associate editor, Monica Greep.

Do you have a unique experience or personal story to share? Email the My Turn team at myturn@newsweek.com.

Fact Check: Does Hamas have a training center in Mexico?

0

Hamas’ recent attack on Israel has sparked a series of unsubstantiated claims it could attempt to make inroads into the U.S. via the country’s border with Mexico.

Former President Donald Trump, among others, shared a baseless theory that President’s Joe Biden‘s immigration policies had resulted in Hamas militants “pouring” across the U.S.-Mexico border. Trump also said that Biden and his “boss,” former President Barack Obama, would be responsible for any Hamas attacks inside the U.S.

According to one social media post this week, the group even has a training center in the Mexican border city of Matamoros.

The Claim

A post on X, formerly Twitter, on October 8, 2023, by user @SarahisCensored, and since viewed 1.5 million times, claimed that Hamas had a training camp in the Mexican border city of Matamoros.

The post stated: “For years, in Matamoros, Mexico, directly across the border from Brownsville, Tx, Hamas had a training center. Once a large factory, the building was used to train young, military age men.

“Dressed in all black, these men would wait for the river to be low enough to cross over the border and illegally infiltrate the US for further training. Hamas has training camps in Mexico, and has for a long time.

“Thousands of jihadists have crossed the border and disappeared into the US. Some given rooms and cell phones (courtesy of your tax dollars). Many have been flown to multiple cities through out the United States including Hartford, Tampa, Atlanta and Houston. The majority that travels into this country illegally are not women and children, they are military age men.

“America needs to wake up. Thousands of sleeper fighters are in our backyard and the Biden Administration is not only aware, they’re complicit. The attack on Israel is only the beginning. Get your households in order.”

The @SarahisCensored account is owned by Sarah Fields, who identifies herself as president/director of advocacy for the Texas Freedom Coalition, which says it supports “constitutional government and pro-family issues in the state of Texas.”

The Facts

Newsweek was unable to find any evidence that Hamas had, or has, a training camp in Matamoros, Mexico.

No searches on a variety of terms predating the current conflict returned any results even suggestive of a link between Hamas militants and training camps in Matamoros or elsewhere in Mexico.

Newsweek has contacted the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, the Mexican government and the National Intelligence Center in Mexico for information relating to Hamas’ alleged presence in the country.

The claim, as shared on X, was presented without evidence. Newsweek has contacted Sarah Fields to ask for further information.

Matamoros is a relatively built-up city near the border shared by southern Texas in an area which is heavily monitored by U.S. and Mexican border security.

Congressional reports produced between 2017-2023 by the U.S. Department of State, reporting on international terrorist threats, have consistently stated that there has been no credible evidence “indicating international terrorist groups have established bases in Mexico, worked directly with Mexican drug cartels, or sent operatives via Mexico into the United States.”

According to the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center, Hamas is based primarily in Gaza, but maintains a presence in the West Bank, Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon and “key regional capitals” including Doha, Qatar, and Cairo.

Blockades out of Gaza severely restrict the organization’s movement too, let alone giving it the opportunity to set up camp in Matamoros.

Both the political and militant arm of Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S.

The Associated Press has reported that at least 2,100 people have been killed on both sides of the conflict in Israel, with thousands more injured.

The Ruling

False.

There is no evidence that Hamas has or ever had a presence in Matamoros or Mexico. The claim was presented without evidence, putting aside the logistical and logical sense behind a group based primarily, and blockaded, in Gaza establishing a camp in Mexico. It also contradicts multi-year U.S. intelligence reports that state there is no credible evidence of international terrorist groups having established bases in Mexico.

FACT CHECK BY Newsweek’s Fact Check team

False: The claim is demonstrably false. Primary source evidence proves the claim to be false. Read more about our ratings.

Fact Check: Has Netanyahu Not Been Invited to the White House?

0

President Joe Biden‘s response to the conflict in Israel has been criticized by opponents this week, who attacked him for hosting a barbecue after heavy fighting broke out at the weekend.

Biden has said the United States “unequivocally” condemned the “appalling assault against Israel by Hamas terrorists from Gaza”, declaring that “Israel has a right to defend itself and its people.”

However, according to Fox News host Martha MacCallum, his administration has not shown an historically welcoming attitude to Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, claiming it had not invited him to the White House in an “unprecedented” move.

The Claim

On an edition of The Story with Martha MacCallum on Fox News, on October 10, 2023, MacCallum claimed the Biden administration had not invited Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House.

Speaking to former director of national intelligence John Ratcliffe, MacCallum said: “And it appears that the White House has allowed their feelings about Bibi Netanyahu, the prime minister, to impede them from having an open dialogue with him and showing support for him that would be strengthening to the U.S.-Israeli alliance.

“He hasn’t even been invited to the White House which is unprecedented, I think, in presidential U.S. history over the past decades at least.”

The Facts

MacCallum’s claim is inaccurate.

Netanyahu has been invited to the White House under the Biden administration. The invitation was extended three weeks ago as the pair met in New York, outside of the U.N. General Assembly.

In a meeting held before the press on September 20, 2023, Biden told Netanyahu in his opening remarks “Welcome, welcome, welcome. And I hope we’ll see each other in Washington by the end of the year here.”

Netanyahu had not been extended an invitation after he was sworn in for a sixth term in December 2022. The move led to comments from then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy in May 2023 that he would be willing to go over Biden’s head to invite Netanyahu to Washington if the president didn’t.

White House spokespeople had previously said that the two leaders would meet in the United States but did not set a date, as reported by multiple media outlets.

So, while the Biden administration’s invitation may have been recent, MacCallum is incorrect to claim that no invite was made.

Newsweek has contacted media representatives for Fox News for comment.

The Ruling

False.

MacCallum is wrong. While Biden had not made an invitation for months after the Israeli prime minister was sworn into office for a sixth time in December 2022, the president invited Netanyahu to the White House during a meeting in September 2023 in New York.

FACT CHECK BY Newsweek’s Fact Check team

False: The claim is demonstrably false. Primary source evidence proves the claim to be false. Read more about our ratings.

Republican threatens to pull Penn State funding over transgender activists

0

Amid protests and counterprotests at Penn State University involving Riley Gaines, a former Division I swimmer who speaks out against transgender athletes’ inclusion in women’s sports, Pennsylvania state Senator Cris Dush threatened to pull university funding while clashing with transgender activists.

Gaines was set to speak at the university on Tuesday for what she dubbed “Real Women’s Day.” But the speech did not take place as her event was not booked properly, according to Penn State. Gaines said the scheduling difficulties were being used as cover to censor speech for which the university feared backlash.

In response, the Penn State chapter of Turning Point USA and Young Americans for Freedom at Penn State held a “Free Speech Rally” in support of Gaines but were soon met with counterprotests on the HUB-Robeson Center Lawn.

The counterprotest drew many in the transgender and LGBTQ+ community and student activists, as Gaines—host of OutKick’s Gaines for Girls—has become a controversial figure to some for her call to ban transgender athletes from women’s sports.

In a video shared to X, formerly Twitter, by The College Fix shows the counterprotesters along with the Republican senator as he calls out the counterprotesters for their behavior and threatens to pull Penn State funding.

“You wanna lose 150 million dollars to the campus for your friends. I’m state senator Cris Dush, if you guys don’t behave yourselves, you very well…,” Dush said.

In response, a counterprotester asks the senator if he supports anti-trans people.

“I support the people who are here like Riley Gaines,” Dush said.

The exchange came after Penn State leaders in early September requested an increase in appropriations for the 2024-25 fiscal year that, if approved by the state, would narrow the per-student funding gap that exists between Penn State and Pennsylvania’s other public universities.

As a state representative in 2017, Dush complained about sending money to universities after schools threatened to raise tuition rates for the 2017 spring semester if the state funding didn’t come through.

In response to Tuesday’s protests, Gaines supported Dush’s stance to stand with women in a statement emailed to Newsweek.

“Civil discourse and freedom of speech are critical for academic institutions like Penn State to embrace and uphold,” she said. “Without them, we will never find common ground and solutions to issues. We must hold those who seek to silence and cancel accountable. I applaud Senator Dush for his support of equal opportunity for women, for standing with women, and for holding PSU and its administrators’ feet to the fire.”

The university said it did not cancel Gaines’ speech and believes in free speech as protesters and counterprotesters were allowed to voice their concerns on Tuesday.

“Penn State believes in free speech for all. Ms. Gaines had a megaphone, while counter protesters had their voices. Both sides were heard,” Penn State said in statement emailed to Newsweek.

As a result of the protests, two people were detained by police on the campus after appearing to cause a disturbance during Gaines’ appearance.

In a statement to Newsweek, the university said that “we’d like to clarify that the individuals removed from yesterday’s event are two non-students who will be issued summary citations.”

Penn State earned a spot on Campus Pride’s “Best of the Best” LGBTQ-friendly College and Universities list, achieving an overall 5 out of 5 stars in the Campus Pride Index for 2023.

Newsweek reached out to Dush, Penn State University and Penn State’s Center for Sexual and Gender Diversity organization via email for further comment.

No Ground War in Gaza; Air War Only. No More Israeli Funerals

0

MODI’IN, Israel—I listen to these retired Israeli generals on the news shouting, “This is war!” and how we’ve got to “destroy Hamas for good!” and “plant the flag on the ruins over there,” and I think—Israel has gone crazy. Which, after what happened, is understandable for ordinary people, but not for experienced, influential military and political figures, the people responsible for leading Israel out of this nightmare instead of stretching it out and making it worse yet, which these days seems not just possible but almost inevitable.

We’re getting ready for a ground invasion of Gaza. Every Israeli is expected to understand that you can’t win a war strictly from the air, you have to send in ground troops. In Gaza, those troops have to go down into those underground tunnels where God knows how many Hamas killers, armed to the teeth, are waiting. Only then, when we’ve wiped them all out, will we win, and will Hamas be destroyed for good.

How many times has Israel sent in masses of ground troops against Hamas since it got out of Gaza in 2005? How many times did Israel attack Hamas on the ground in the decades before, when the Israeli army was stationed inside the Strip full-time? How many Israeli soldiers got killed in those “operations”? Did all that destroy Hamas even temporarily, let alone for good?

In the 2006 Second Lebanon War, destroying Hezbollah for good and forcing them to give back the two Israeli soldiers they abducted at the start were the Olmert government’s declared war aims. About 100 Israeli ground troops were killed and 1,200 wounded in that war—and in the end the government had to trade prisoners to get back the bodies of the two soldiers, and Hezbollah, unfortunately, is still here too.

The Israel Air Force is now bombing the holy hell out of Gaza. As of this writing, the Palestinians count 950 dead and 5,000 wounded. We’re killing at least some Hamas maniacs, wrecking at least some of their infrastructure, but mainly we’re taking revenge on Hamas’ country—which we’re entitled to do, and showing Hamas’ home front that there is a terrific price to pay when their leaders order an attack on Israel like the one on Saturday. Maybe it will have the effect of deterring Hamas from trying something like this again, at least for a long while. The battering Israel gave the Lebanese home front in 2006 after Hezbollah killed 10 Israeli soldiers very clearly had that effect on Hamas’ ally to the north.

As far as I’m concerned, let the Air Force go on bombing Gaza for a few more days. Let another thousand or so Palestinian civilians be killed. I never would have dreamed of saying anything like that in the past, but there has never been an anti-Israeli terror attack in the same galaxy as the one on Saturday. I want revenge too, and I want to restore some deterrence.

Above all, though, I don’t want any more Israelis to get killed. And lots of them will get killed in a ground war in Gaza. Also, many more will be killed if Hezbollah enters the war, which is another reason to end it quickly. One more reason is so we can exchange prisoners and get the 150 hostages back, which Hamas refuses to discuss while the war goes on. Yet another reason to end it in days is that there has to be some reasonable limit on revenge.

In the meantime, no Israeli soldiers are being killed in the air war, because Hamas can’t shoot their jets out of the sky, and Hezbollah has not unleashed its 150,000 rockets and missiles at us. What would be so bad, so harmful, about continuing the air war for a few more days only, and freezing the Israeli death toll from this satanic event—which at this writing has surpassed 1,200—for good?

Larry Derfner is an American-born journalist in Israel, author of the memoirs No Country for Jewish Liberals and Playing Till We Have to Go—A Jewish childhood in inner-city L.A., and lead singer for the rock ‘n’ soul band The NightCallers.

The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.

Our Kids Are in Crisis and the GOP Is Set on Making It Much, Much Worse

0

A crisis is unfolding before our eyes for American families. Last month, new census numbers revealed that the number of children in poverty more than doubled last year, from 4 million to 9 million. And unfortunately, this month it will get even harder.

Student loan payments just restarted again for 43 million borrowers, millions of whom have children they’re trying to support. Between 7.8 and 24.4 million people, including up to 5 million children, will lose Medicaid coverage this year due to the unwinding of a pandemic-era Continuous Enrollment Provision, which prohibited states from disenrolling people from coverage.

And if that wasn’t enough, working parents may soon find themselves without the childcare they rely on to make a living for their families. On Sept. 30, 3.2 million child care spots started to disappear because states faced a steep drop-off in federal child care investments. Seventy-thousand child care programs are likely to close in the coming months, making the process of finding affordable child care even more challenging and leaving millions in impossible situations as they try to support their families.

As executive director of ParentsTogether Action, a nonprofit parent advocacy group that represents more than 3 million families, and a mother of two, I know firsthand—and hear every day—how hard it is to be a parent in our country. And the truth is, it doesn’t need to be.

One of the most hopeful periods of my career advocating for the needs of families was during the summer of 2021, when monthly checks of up to $300 per child from the expanded Child Tax Credit started hitting parents’ bank accounts. I heard over and over again that the checks were a lifesaver, helping families afford rent, childcare, car payments, and keep food on the table. The data validated what I was hearing—that year, child poverty decreased by almost half.

But in January 2022, the expanded CTC expired because of opposition from Republicans and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV). Skyrocketing child poverty was the obvious consequence, but I fear it is only the beginning.

Even before the childcare cliff hit days ago, we faced a child care crisis in this country. In August, ParentsTogether surveyed a sample of our 3 million members, and found that 59 percent of families with children under 5 said someone in their household had to cut back on hours or leave a job because they couldn’t find reliable childcare within their budget.

There’s no doubt that the childcare system in this country needs a complete overhaul. As any parent will confirm, the system has long been broken—and the real solution is to create a universal program that guarantees access to affordable, high-quality, equitable care for the next generation. Congress‘s first order of business should be to pass the Child Care Stabilization Act, which would extend vital federal childcare stabilization funding and make sure childcare providers can keep their doors open. But what families really need are long-term solutions like universal childcare, the expanded Child Tax Credit, and paid leave.

These policies may sound like a pipedream here in the United States, but the fact is around the world they are commonplace. In Denmark, thanks to government investment in young children, every toddler is guaranteed a spot in childcare. Meanwhile, the United States spends just 0.2 percent of our GDP on childcare for children under 2—that comes out to less than $200 a year for most families. The U.S. is the only OECD country to provide zero paid maternity, paternity, and parental leave. Despite seeing in real time how a universal child benefit in the form of the expanded Child Tax Credit cut child poverty almost in half, the U.S. has been unwilling to follow in the footsteps of countries that have long provided parents with monthly allowances to help offset the high cost of raising kids.

As much as some politicians would like us to believe that as parents, we’re on our own to raise our children, the reason that millions of American families are in crisis right now isn’t because they are bad parents, or have made bad decisions—it’s because the Republican Party has targeted parents and families for a generation.

They have come for reproductive freedom, taking away the choice of how and when to start a family. They’ve methodically waged a war on vital programs like SNAP and WIC (the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children), demanding vast cuts and additional work requirements, all while refusing to acknowledge that parenting is work. And they have brazenly stood in the way when Democrats have sought to enact policies to help families in crisis—from paid family leave to Black maternal health.

When Democrats gained the majorities necessary to pass the American Rescue Plan in 2021, we got a glimpse of what is possible. Unfortunately, their majority was not strong enough to pass the game-changing family-focused policies we hoped. And now, with Republicans controlling the House of Representatives, instead of addressing skyrocketing child poverty or the oncoming childcare crisis, they are searching the budget for ways to slash more programs families rely on—and they’ve gone so far as to threaten to shut down the government to do it.

A recent example is the vital nutrition programs helping families keep food on the table, at a time when more than 34 million Americans, including 9 million children, face hunger every day. Fifty-three percent of all infants in the U.S. rely on support from WIC, which offers a lifeline to new parents by providing healthy food, breastfeeding support, and formula to babies. But if Republicans in the House succeed in forcing through their proposed budget, WIC could see waitlists for the first time since 1997.

Republican politicians talk often about ‘parents’ rights,’ arguing that the answers families have been looking for during these challenging times are found in scrutinizing school boards, classrooms, drag shows, and libraries. But the truth is that they are going out of their way to make life harder for parents and caregivers – especially those struggling to make ends meet.

As those parents and caregivers across the country start to think about who to support in quickly approaching elections, it’s vital that we remind them who is fighting for our children, and who is fighting against them.

Ailen Arreaza is executive director of ParentsTogether Action, an advocacy group with more than 3 million parent members nationwide.

The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.

How High a Price Will Israel Pay to ‘Win’ in Gaza Against Hamas?

0

After the horror and depravity Israel just experienced, an Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip is no longer a question of “if,” but “when.” It’s becoming increasingly obvious that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are preparing for a ground incursion to root out Hamas, kill as many Hamas commanders as possible and destroy the terrorist organization’s ability to threaten Israeli civilians with violence.

The writing is on the wall. Approximately 360,000 Israeli reservists have been called to duty, most of them positioned in or near the southern Israeli border communities that were victimized by the full-scale, indiscriminate Hamas assault. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu phoned President Joe Biden on October 8, as the Hamas attack was still ongoing, and reportedly told him that Israel had no choice but “to go in” with ground forces. One former Israeli defense official told Al-Monitor, a Middle East-focused news website, that Hamas made a fatal mistake. “Israel cannot afford not to settle the score with them,” this source said. Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant was unequivocal: “I have released all the restraints, we have [regained] control of the area, and we are moving to a full offense.”

Israel and Hamas are no strangers to warfare, of course. Before last weekend’s violence, the two fought each other four times over a 15-year timeframe. Engagements between Israel and Hamas took on a familiar character: Hamas would send missiles flying into Israel; Israel would retaliate by launching airstrikes into Gaza for days and sometimes weeks; and Egypt would eventually mediate a ceasefire. A degree of calm would be established, only for the calm to be ruptured by more missile attacks and airstrikes. Hamas simply didn’t have resources or manpower to take the fight to Israel, and the Israelis didn’t have the desire to send its own troops into Gaza’s densely-packed neighborhoods. For Israel, airpower was the ultimate tool, a way to penalize Hamas and restore some deterrence while avoiding the high cost of a ground campaign.

That once familiar pattern, however, is now in the past. The Hamas attacks over the weekend were of such ferocity, lethality, and barbarism that Netanyahu may not have any option but to send ground units into the Strip. The same man who once checked his more hawkish military counterparts whenever a ground incursion into Gaza was floated is now likely to preside over the biggest ground incursion since the 1982 war in Lebanon.

The last time Israeli ground forces entered Gaza was in July 2014. That engagement, though, only lasted several weeks and had limited objectives: destroy Hamas’ cross-border, underground tunnel network. Israeli troops stayed relatively close to the Israel-Gaza border and bypassed the enclave’s major cities. Sixty-six Israeli troops lost their lives before the military pulled out.

The IDF’s objectives are far more ambitious this time around: destroy Hamas. Israel can’t do that from the air. Assuming this objective can even be accomplished, a more extensive and longer ground operation will be required. Israeli forces will have to comb through entire neighborhoods in places like Gaza City and Khan Yunis, areas the Israeli army hasn’t operated in since it left Gaza in 2005. Hamas’ system of tunnels will have to be dealt with as well. Some of those tunnels may be housing some of the 150 Israeli civilians taken captive by Hamas, which makes the operational environment even more arduous. Hamas can blend in with civilians during armed engagements and possesses enough firepower, including anti-tank guided missiles and cheap drones, to stop Israeli tanks and increase Israeli casualties. Hamas also knows the warrens and alleys of Gaza far better than the Israelis could hope to do.

Then there’s the “day after” question.

Any comprehensive Israeli ground invasion of Gaza will take weeks, if not months, of fighting to complete. But let’s say for the sake of argument that Israel accomplishes its military goals. What then? Does Israel have a plan for administering Gaza, an enclave of more than 2 million Palestinians? Or does it simply pack up, go home, blockade it indefinitely and hope that a semi-decent Palestinian replacement to Hamas emerges over time? This doesn’t seem like a viable strategy.

Alternatively, Israel could try to fill the governance void. Transferring control over Gaza’s affairs to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is technically an option, but the PA can barely administer the parts of the West Bank it now controls and has a severe legitimacy crisis in the eyes of the Palestinian population. According to the most recent survey from the Palestinian Center for Survey Research, 80 percent of Palestinians would like to see Abbas resign and half say the PA should dissolve. Considering the PA hasn’t been in Gaza since 2007, it’s hard to see the institution performing up to standards even if it wanted to.

An Israeli re-occupation of Gaza is also technically an option. But let’s be honest: no Israeli prime minister wants the Israeli army to serve as an occupying force in Gaza. Even the late Ariel Sharon, the very definition of a security hawk, wanted no part of the enclave and chose instead to leave the area to the Palestinians. A traditional U.N. peacekeeping mission isn’t likely either, if only because such a mission would have to be approved by a U.N. Security Council that has been divided on the Israel-Palestine issue for decades.

One way or another, Israel is going to exact a heavy price on Hamas. The outstanding question is whether Israel will step into an even deeper set of problems.

Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a syndicated foreign affairs columnist at the Chicago Tribune.

The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.

Donald Trump Is Partly to Blame for the Situation in Israel

0

Saturday’s terrorist attacks in Israel by Hamas militants represent the worst crisis between Israelis and Palestinians in more than two decades. But rather than offering constructive policy alternatives, Republican presidential candidates have settled on an intellectually bankrupt strategy of blaming the Biden administration for everything. The finger-pointing is particularly rich given the way that the Trump administration obliterated longstanding American policy in the region, handed a series of pinless policy grenades to President Biden and then took cover.

The inability to broker a final settlement between Israel and Palestine is an American foreign policy failure that spans at least six administrations stretching back to the 1980s. But it was the last two Republican presidents who departed dramatically from the international “land for peace” consensus that was supposed to result in a Palestinian state. Former President George W. Bush, despite occasional rhetoric supporting Palestinian statehood, walked back America’s commitment to widely shared interpretations of UN Security Council Resolution 242 by signing off on Israel retaining large settlement blocs in the West Bank, demanding that Palestinians usher in a functioning democracy before peace was possible and then washing his hands of the matter when he didn’t like the election results. His world-historically disastrous war of choice in Iraq did more to bolster Iranian authoritarians than any other single event since the country’s revolution in 1979.

But it was former President Donald Trump who did far more catastrophic damage. Trump greenlit the needlessly provocative move of the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, part of which is located in territory the United Nations considered unlawfully occupied by Israel since the 1967 war. The move abandoned another longstanding American negotiating position—that Jerusalem would ultimately be a shared capital between two national people.

Warned that moving the embassy would result in blowback down the line, the Trump administration and its allies mostly gloated about how clever they were. When Palestine did not immediately erupt into chaos, they concluded that the maneuver would have no repercussions. Not only that, but Trump then recognized the permanent Israeli annexation of the occupied Golan Heights and invalidated a 1978 State Department ruling that Israeli settlements in the West Bank were unlawful.

Instead, the Trump administration gave the Israeli government carte blanche not only to expand existing settlements but to grant even isolated encampments anywhere in the West Bank legitimacy and sovereignty. The Trump administration’s subservience to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his maximalist government was so complete that polling suggested Israel would have given the former president his largest margin over Biden if it were a U.S. state.

To make matters worse, the Trump team followed through on its promise to torch the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, better known as the Iran Deal. Not even the Trump officials responsible for this gratuitous act of diplomatic sabotage could identify any reason for it, other than that they wanted to. The move not only led predictably to the resumption of Iranian nuclear activities but also to the election of an ultra-hardline government in Tehran that redoubled its destructive meddling in regional affairs, including providing cash, training and weapons to Hamas militants.

The Biden administration did little to reverse any of these Trump disasters, even picking up the baton of helping Israel conclude separate peace agreements with Arab states rather than encouraging a resumption of talks with Palestinians. Biden has refused to follow through on reopening the consulate in Jerusalem for Palestinians. And ultimately, the administration’s severe political risk aversion has insulated it neither from disingenuous Republican attacks nor Palestinian frustration with the status quo.

Nevertheless, claiming that the president is responsible for the horrific Hamas attacks inside of Israel is preposterous, like poking a hornet’s nest, running away and then blaming the sucker who comes along next and gets stung. The Trump administration did everything it possibly could to encourage and legitimize Palestinian violence against Israelis, and Republicans have little standing to point fingers at Biden for it. Worse still are false and disgusting charges by charlatans like Vivek Ramaswamy and Trump himself that the Biden administration “funded Hamas,” a zombie lie that will surely be repeated thousands of times between now and next November no matter how many articles are publishing debunking it.

Biden must not allow this tragedy to suck the United States back into its previous, heavy-handed military posture in the region, or to encourage Israeli military strikes on Iranian nuclear installations in retaliation for Tehran’s role in the attacks. The administration should instead use this terrible moment as an opportunity to advance a new vision of peace between Israelis and Palestinians, one that doesn’t rely on what are by now dead-letter proposals for statehood that lack anything approaching majority support in Israel or Palestine.

David Faris is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Roosevelt University and the author of It’s Time to Fight Dirty: How Democrats Can Build a Lasting Majority in American Politics. His writing has appeared in The Week, The Washington Post, The New Republic, Washington Monthly and more. You can find him on Twitter @davidmfaris.

The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.

MINI’s business plan tangled up in ‘protectionist’ US government regulation

0

Yes, the U.S. will new electric MINIs. But, not yet. The MINI Countryman Electric will be first to market and plans for the introduction of the MINI battery-electric car and Aceman battery-electric crossover will be announced in the fourth quarter of this year.

The next two years are big ones for MINI. The BMW Group brand is expanding its portfolio in a bid to become more relevant than ever. It’s the culmination of a multi-prong strategy that encompasses the global marketplace and treats MINI’s Cooper, Aceman and Countryman lineup seriously.

The automaker plans to sell a mixture of internal combustion engine-powered and battery-electric vehicles around the world. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and associated electric vehicle parts sourcing regulations, which Wurst calls “a protectionist topic”, adds complexity to the MINI business case in the U.S.

MINI has long been expected to build a plant in Mexico to build cars for the Americas. Industry watchers were charting the plant to come online in the last part of the decade. That plan may be being reworked as a result of the IRA and associated rule making, which drives up the cost of electric vehicle adoption for buyers of models made outside the U.S.

“We have to work with it, for MINI with having a much lower volume, but indeed, a very steep growth curve. There’s different strategies to be applied. And we haven’t disclosed and told everything we are going to do yet. But we are well aware of that fact that we have to act differently than BMW, and to cover the world in a different manner,” Wurst told Newsweek.

“Whatever suits the U.S. doesn’t suit China and the other way around … It’s not a secret that’s just at the at the moment how the world works for us.”

In a bid to reach carbon neutral status, the company is going beyond the tailpipe and looking toward circularity as a means of achieving climate responsibility goals. The new Cooper isn’t just a home to sustainably created materials. It is a more sustainable vehicle as a whole.

“In a couple of years, you want to dismantle a MINI Cooper, then you have to dismantle fewer things [because it has less components] … [There are] a lot of things that already went into the design process that make the product more recyclable in the future, because we’re using less materials and different materials that are not so scarce,” Wurst said.

She gave examples saying that MINI is recycling reclaimed aluminum and using it, integrating knitted material in to the model, and using batteries that contain no rare earth metals.

Wurst sees MINI as having a solid place in the future based on the strategy of lessening carbon emissions in cities. U.S. cities have begun adopting regulations and fees surrounding low emissions zones, taking a page from existing rules in Europe and Asia.

“The brand really kind of aligns with some of the smart city initiatives happening globally,” Wurst said. “There’s also the movement toward thinking about cities and future of design and how automobiles can be incorporated with multimodal forms of transportation.

“We have to think in Europe also about maybe cities that at one point in time, they will ban a specific type of or size of vehicle. And I think MINI can play a huge role here. And I think we have to be really open minded and again, forward thinking within BMW Group because I think MINI can be a key ingredient in being successful in urban areas in the future.”

America’s Credit Rating Was Just Cut: Now What?

0

On August 1, Fitch Ratings, one of the three primary credit rating agencies, downgraded the United States’ long-term credit rating from AAA to AA+, the second downgrade of U.S. debt in 12 years. In August 2011, Standard and Poor’s (S&P) downgraded U.S. debt in response to deficit spending and policies it believed “fell short of the amount necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden.” In its recent downgrade, Fitch stated: “The repeated debt-limit political standoffs and last-minute resolutions have eroded confidence in fiscal management.”

The verbiage of both was harsh, but the downgrades were arguably mild. A downgrade from AAA to AA+ is roughly the institutional equivalent of a drop in an individual’s FICO score from 850 to 830. The credit is still excellent, and the slight drop should not materially impact borrowing costs. However, the warnings in the report should not be ignored, and there is a very good case to be made that the AA+ rating is overly generous.

The current U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is roughly 120%. That is three times higher than the global AAA median of 39.3%, and it’s more than double the median of other AA-rated countries. Fitch was only this generous with its credit rating because of its recognition of the unique financial benefits the U.S. dollar enjoys as the global reserve currency. Fitch forecasts additional debt/GDP growth, “increasing the vulnerability of the U.S. fiscal position during future economic shocks.”

Why should we care?

In 2011, the government’s cost of borrowing counter-intuitively fell after the S&P downgrade. After the Fitch downgrade this year, yields initially moved higher before stabilizing. Treasury yields, however, remain elevated and volatile.

If downgrades don’t impact borrowing costs, why should we care? The answer lies in the warnings and forecasts in the Fitch and S&P reports. The U.S. financial condition is worse than the AA+ credit rating would suggest and continues to deteriorate. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the government collected $7.6 trillion in total receipts and had $9.1 trillion in expenditures, resulting in $1.47 trillion in net borrowing (the deficit) in 2022. Forecasts for 2023 put net borrowing even higher. Fitch was right to be concerned. This level of deficit spending is usually only seen in times of war or deep recession. Currently, the economy is growing with low unemployment. Should that change, the report specifically noted “increasing vulnerability … to future economic shocks.”

Not only is the government borrowing more, but the cost of that debt is much higher. For much of the 21st century, the government was able to borrow at interest rates near 1%. Now, thanks to inflation, borrowing is at 5% or higher. Higher interest expenses result in more government expenditure, which results in even more deficit spending, which requires even more borrowing. We can quickly see the issue here.

Trillions of dollars are hard to comprehend, so let’s compare the federal budget to a household budget. Imagine a household with $76,000 in take-home pay spending $91,000 per year with the $15,000 debt going on a credit card every year for the foreseeable future. The credit card balance is currently $330,000 (and growing each year) with an interest rate that tripled in the last 18 months. This debt can’t be discharged in bankruptcy, so the children and relatives are responsible for paying it off. Do you think that household would still enjoy an 830 FICO score?

So, what happens when the government runs out of money? This is where the global reserve currency status is so valuable because the government can just create more. Technically, this is not allowed, but the Treasury and Federal Reserve have developed a workaround via open-market operations. This new money comes at a cost though. When you create money faster than you grow GDP, you have more dollars chasing fewer goods, resulting in higher prices. Contrary to modern monetary theory, 2020-22 has shown us that inflation is a predictable result of excess money creation.

In many ways, our status as the global reserve currency has allowed the U.S. to operate well beyond traditional financial constraints. Unlike many financial doomsayers, I don’t believe that we are immediately at risk of losing our reserve currency status. Yes, the euro was built to compete with the dollar, but the European Union is too weak and fragmented to effectively compete. China and Russia are trying to put together a BRICS alternative to the U.S. dollar, but authoritarian economies eventually revert to control over the freedom and legal protections necessary to be a reserve currency.

What can you do to protect your assets?

The U.S. has its fiscal issues, but currency value is a relative game, not an absolute one. No other country or union has the size, liquidity, and stability of the United States. The threat is not a collapse of the dollar, but a consistent and potentially accelerating loss in purchasing power and the erosion in quality of life as inflation consumes more and more of our discretionary budget.

To protect your purchasing power, consider buying assets that have positive cash flows. Stocks and income-producing assets can have earnings that can grow in nominal dollars, meaning that as inflation grows, so does your cash flow and eventually the assets’ value. You should also consider assets that cannot be duplicated — physical gold, premium real estate, and even fine art. Know that some of these suffer from limited liquidity and unique storage challenges.

Many argue that crypto serves as a hedge against currency dilution. Again, the “cannot be duplicated” criteria apply here. One could argue that Bitcoin has value because of its known scarcity and broad acceptance, while other random coins are of little long-term value.

Investors need to recognize that the entity issuing the U.S. debt also makes the rules of commerce. The government has a vested interest in supporting its spending needs; therefore, protecting your purchasing power requires constant diligence.

The information provided here is not investment, tax, or financial advice. You should consult with a licensed professional for advice concerning your specific situation.

The Newsweek Expert Forum is an invitation-only network of influential leaders, experts, executives, and entrepreneurs who share their insights with our audience.What’s this?Content labeled as the Expert Forum is produced and managed by Newsweek Expert Forum, a fee based, invitation only membership community. The opinions expressed in this content do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Newsweek or the Newsweek Expert Forum.