Latest news with #October8
Fox News
6 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
I know why the UN Security Council is irrelevant to Gaza. I was there when the US stood up for Israel
On October 7, 2023, like many around the world, I awoke to news of the horrific attacks perpetrated by Hamas against more than 1,200 innocent Israeli, American and other civilians who that day were doing nothing other than going about their lives. The television newscasts were bone-chilling – pictures of mutilated babies; of fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers slain in front of family members; of peace activists murdered in cold blood; and of the taking of 250 hostages, some of whom more than 20 months on are still being held. Later that day, the United States called for an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council to address this mass terror attack, the largest murder of Jews since the Holocaust. As the American ambassador to the UN responsible for Security Council matters, I represented the United States at the October 8 emergency meeting and demanded the council issue a statement expressly condemning Hamas for the ruthless terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, Russia, China and a few other council members refused to endorse such a statement. To put it simply, their refusal to call a spade a spade was abhorrent and incomprehensible. Note: To this day, the Security Council has yet to formally declare Hamas a terrorist group. Going into the October 8 emergency Security Council meeting, there had rightfully been much global sympathy for Israel – and certainly an expectation that Israel would have to respond militarily. However, once Israel took measures to defend itself, a right enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter, many nations, most notably from the Global South, condemned Israel's response as disproportionate and used it as a rallying cry to further isolate Israel in the multilateral system and beyond. To me and many of my U.S. government colleagues, this was not unexpected. Since joining the UN in 1948, there has been an unfortunate decline in support for Israel at the world body, a decline that began to accelerate following the period of decolonization in the 1960s. Many former colonies wrongly began to view the Israel-Palestinian conflict through the prism of their own struggles against European colonizers, with Israel viewed as a colonizer and the Palestinians as being colonized. Israel's relationship with the UN reached a nadir in 1975, when the UN General Assembly passed a highly politicized resolution equating Zionism with racism, a document that was finally revoked by the UNGA in 1991. Regrettably, efforts by the Palestinians and their supporters to isolate Israel at the UN have not abated and in fact have intensified since October 7, 2023. During my two-plus years in New York as ambassador, I engaged in a great deal of difficult diplomacy on the situation in Gaza and cast the sole veto of two UNSC draft resolutions related to the war, both of which lacked a clear condemnation of Hamas, a direct linkage of a ceasefire to the release of hostages, and a reference to Israel's Article 51 rights. Had these texts been adopted by the council, they would not have delivered an immediate ceasefire or a release of the hostages – but certainly would have given Hamas the time and space to rearm. Other council representatives privately agreed but nevertheless felt increasing pressure from their capitals to produce a council document calling for an immediate ceasefire. From the beginning of the conflict through the end of the Biden administration, the U.S. regularly proffered creative alternatives on ceasefire language, while most other council members insisted on an explicit reference to an immediate ceasefire. On rare occasions, the council was able to find common ground on Gaza wording when it focused on upholding the principles of humanitarian assistance and protection of civilians. But when some members opted to abandon council unity and force votes on resolutions containing unacceptable ceasefire language, the U.S. was left with no choice but to exercise its veto. Before each veto was cast, we recognized the potential collateral damage to America's international reputation; however, in our view the adoption of an unbalanced council resolution would have made a ceasefire neither practicable nor implementable given the highly charged and extremely complex situation on the ground. In the United States' view, the establishment of a limited and credible negotiation channel was essential for achieving an effective, durable and sustainable end to the war. While the Biden administration didn't achieve an end to the war on its watch, it did negotiate a three-phase diplomatic framework to pause the fighting and release the hostages, which was ultimately blessed by the council and backed by the Trump administration. To this day, one key factor hampering council unity on Gaza is Moscow and Beijing's exploitation of the situation there for a clear geopolitical end: deflect international attention away from Russia's savage war against Ukraine. In response to Russian statements in the Council on Gaza, which habitually condemned the U.S. for allegedly facilitating Israeli actions, I constantly reminded council members that Russia was in no position to criticize any country given the horrific war of aggression it was conducting in Ukraine. I also publicly warned Chinese diplomats that should they continue making false accusations about the U.S. concerning Gaza, I would immediately call out their country's support to Russia's military industrial base, refuting Beijing's fictitious claim that it supports neither party to the conflict. Russia and China must end their politicization of Gaza and either contribute constructively to peace efforts or simply get out of the way. While I had expected Russia and China to take adversarial positions, I was extremely disappointed that three U.S. partners on the council, Slovenia, Algeria and Guyana, chose to regularly piggyback on Russian and Chinese political shenanigans to push for more urgent council action on the issue. Their aim was to shame the U.S. and compel it to change course from its steadfast support of Israel in the war with Hamas. All the while, the three had been keenly aware that Washington was conducting sensitive negotiations behind the scenes with Israel, Qatar and Egypt on steps to facilitate a durable end to the fighting and ease civilian suffering in Gaza. But instead of getting fully behind those steps and working with us in good faith, they preferred to ratchet up public pressure on the U.S. and ignore American concerns about how their actions would be manipulated by Hamas and other malign actors in the region – Iran, Hezbollah and the Houthis – to the detriment of regional peace and security. Given persistent council divisions over the war in Gaza, some UN member states continue to lay the diplomatic predicate for a future General Assembly resolution (non-legally binding) calling for sanctions, an arms embargo and other tough international measures against Israel. The recent U.S. veto of another council resolution on Gaza will certainly provide fuel for those efforts. As I write, the Palestinians and their allies continue to ponder additional pathways to go after Israel throughout the UN system. There is even discussion in some UN circles about suspending Israel's voting rights in the General Assembly, an act that would deeply anger Washington and trigger severe political consequences for the UN. Since this tragic conflict began, I have been mystified as to why many UN officials believe that all the U.S. has to do is instruct Israel to end its pursuit of Hamas and then somehow a magical end to the fighting would materialize. On their part, I sense a genuine reluctance to treat Israel as a legitimate state with its own national security concerns. While the United States does indeed have influence with Israel, it is naïve at best for these colleagues to think America can simply dictate to Jerusalem what it should and shouldn't do in response to what it perceives as existential threats. Russia and China must end their politicization of Gaza and either contribute constructively to peace efforts or simply get out of the way. Misguided pressure on the U.S., relentless efforts to isolate Israel, Russian and Chinese diversionary tactics, blatant antisemitism, and a reluctance by some states to compromise continue to stymie the Security Council's ability to speak with one voice on ending the Gaza war. Until these unfortunate practices cease, the council will remain irrelevant to a resolution to Gaza and the broader Israel-Palestinian conflict. While no one can ignore the terrible tragedy that is now Gaza, it remains a fact that those UN member states that have influence with Hamas have made a strategic decision not to use it. The hesitancy of many countries over the years to publicly condemn Hamas as a terrorist group has only given it the oxygen it needs to carry on, no matter how much death and suffering Palestinians in Gaza continue to experience. To end this war, Hamas must disarm and disband. There will not be peace in Gaza until it does. Gazans deserve an opportunity to live in peace and to seek a prosperous future. Hamas' continued rule will bring them neither.
Sky News AU
14-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Sky News AU
Hamas ‘celebrated as freedom fighters' the day after October 7 attack
Director and Filmmaker Wendy Sachs discusses her documentary 'October 8' and the reasons behind creating it. The October 8 documentary aims to raise awareness of growing antisemitism around the world. Ms Sachs told Sky News host Sharri Markson that she saw Hamas being 'celebrated as freedom fighters' the day after the October 7 attack on Israel. 'Rather than being condemned as terrorists.'
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Why Joe Rogan's Recent Tilt Is So Dangerous
Did Douglas Murray's arrow hit the bullseye? And more important, does it matter? More from The Hollywood Reporter Joe Rogan Scolded by Own Guest for Pushing Conspiracy Theories Amid Political Creator Boom, Megyn Kelly Launches Podcast Network (Exclusive) How New Documentary 'October 8' Is a Touchstone for People Worried About Antisemitism To anyone watching with growing alarm as Joe Rogan in recent weeks has platformed Darryl Cooper and Ian Carroll — both Carroll and Cooper have been accused of disseminating antisemitic ideas — as well as anti-vax flame-throwers like Suzanne Humphries, a sitdown with the British neoconservative thinker Murray was the Robin Hood moment most needed. With his hosting of the unholy trio, the most popular podcaster in the world — some 15 million accounts follow The Joe Rogan Experience on Spotify while millions more consume its content elsewhere at least four times a week — has been on a tear of the kind never seen by an information megaplatform. Murray got in the chair last week and had none of it. 'I feel you've opened the door to quite a lot of people who now got a big platform, who have been throwing out counter-historical stuff of a very dangerous kind,' Murray said to Rogan and Dave Smith, the comedian-commentator who had been invited to the party too. 'These guys are not historians; they're not knowledgeable about anything,' Murray said, alluding to Cooper and Carroll. Rogan got mealy mouthed. He said he didn't believe he was platforming dangerous figures. 'I don't think about it that way,' he told Murray. 'I just think, 'I'd like to talk to that person.'' Welcome to the new 'just asking questions.' 'Just talking to people.' Ah, but what are those people saying? Carroll spent stretches of his nearly three hours insinuating (and sometimes doing more than insinuating) ominous-sounding connections between Jeffrey Epstein, Israel, organized crime and 'global Jewish billionaires,' egged on by a credulous and enthusiastic Rogan. Carroll straight-facedly dropped allegations that Epstein was sex-trafficking on behalf of the Israeli government while Rogan nodded thoughtfully, agreeing that it's 'the deep state of the intelligence agencies in Israel.' 'Jews are regular people just like everyone else,' is the kind of thing Carroll says, softening the audience so they barely clock what comes next, about the plans the 'powerful Jewish people' are making. A week later Darryl Cooper arrived to perform his act, which can be described as offering outrageous provocations he then half walks back so he could repeat them all again tomorrow. In September Cooper had appeared on Tucker Carlson's podcast to say that Churchill was the real villain in World War II and that Nazis didn't want to kill Jews in concentration camps; Jews only 'ended up dead' because Germany didn't have the resources to take care of them. Two dozen Jewish Congresspeople called out Cooper's appearance and Carlson's implicit endorsement. Cooper later said he was being 'hyperbolic' about Churchill. Of course by that point it didn't matter. On Rogan, Cooper went on a jag essentially about how he was not given free rein to empathize with Nazis and how antisemites were being unfairly banished from the public square. 'Antisemitism is a weird thing,' he said. 'I think a lot of it also has to do with the fact that so many of these questions have really been made you know, it's not like they're off limits like they're illegal and you're gonna go to jail if you talk about them; I'm still sitting here. I mean, I'm on your podcast and so that's a big platform to talk about these things. It's not like that. But the attempt is to make it so that you can't be in any kind of respectable society. Yeah, the attempt is to make you radioactive.' Cooper went on to allude to 'your paranoid Jewish friends who think that everybody's antisemitic,' with a bizarre lack of self-awareness at how his own remarks might have just disproved the adjective. One hardly needs to have studied the lessons of WWII — and a good thing, as for all his claims Cooper does not seem to have — to understand where both men's demonization of Jews can lead. If you thought Humphries came off any sounder, think again; her folksy country-doctor turn on Rogan did not make her scientifically disproven howlers any less howl-y. Among the claims the scientifically discredited Humphries made was that TB was a 'side effect of the smallpox vaccine,' the evidence-free claim that the COVID vaccine contained snake poison and that polio was caused by DDT (she's suggested that sanitation and not vaccination primarily stopped its spread). Rogan was as welcomingly agreeable to her as he was to Cooper and Carroll, saying he now saw the truth about vaccines and cringed at his previous assumptions that vaccines 'saved us from polio, it saved us from smallpox.' He called Humphries 'a very brave and brilliant woman' and called COVID 'this enormous gaslighting experience that we all just went through.' But as the BBC journalist Shayan Sardarizadeh noted, Humphries 'rolls out a series of false, repeatedly debunked claims about vaccines for polio, tetanus and other diseases being unsafe and harmful.' The episode was so filled with apparent falsehoods it even got a slapdown from Elon Musk, who posted in response that 'vaccines, essentially training your immune system for battle, do work well for addressing many diseases.' It was into this chasm that Murray tossed his grenade — this was all dangerous stuff. 'There's a point at which 'I'm just raising questions' isn't valid anymore,' he told Rogan. 'You're not asking questions — you're telling people something.' And with the host's fans it landed … nowhere. Reactions on YouTube, X and other forums were spiritedly pro-Rogan. Glenn Greenwald, perhaps the best cautionary tale for Rogan of a once-respected indie outsider, described Murray as 'fall[ing] apart.' The troll-y Fox-owned sports site Outkick said Murray had been 'humiliated' and acted 'absurd.' Scores of posters — as of this writing it totaled some 110,000 — flowed onto YouTube, many to pile on Murray. No matter how trenchant his argument or needed his message, it seemed to move neither host nor follower. Rogan's new tilt is, if nothing else, a boon to listenership. The Carroll episode drew 3.5 million views on YouTube alone, one of the most popular episodes of the year. Conspiracy theories sell, and conspiracy theories from people who head-feint that they're not conspiracy theorists sell even bigger. And if something goes viral, all the better; the content that the Murray episode spun off, in quarters ranging from Piers Morgan to The Hill — the debate ABOUT the debate — only further sends cash into Rogan's pocket, ensuring more conspiracy theorists in the future. The only real fact to take away from these episodes is that sober truth-telling is bad for business. What seems to be emerging here is nothing less than a new kind of mainstream infotainment, a genetically mutated Frost-Nixon, in which instead of public officials squirming in the chair at questions from well-informed journalists, one-eyed armchair provocateurs show up to peddle juicy stories that go encouraged by the dollar- (or chaos-) minded hosts who invite them there. But what also is emerging is something more dangerous and specific to the man peddling it. With many of his episodes Rogan reaches more people than all three network nightly news shows combined. Those networks have also reported on fringe conspiracists, of course. They just haven't given them three-hour primetime specials. Rogan isn't just platforming hateful voices; that would be bad enough. His is an active way of denying basic truths about history and science through the clever curation of guests. Almost as important as who Rogan has had on is who he hasn't had on. Carroll, Cooper and Humphries each got their limitless screen time, feature films of truthy-sounding 'facts' to back up their agenda-driven action sequences. But there exists no sequel, no set of scenes to countermand them at the intellectual box office, leaving millions of people with the idea that reasonable people can believe that global Jewish billionaires run sex-trafficking rings with the help of the Israeli government; that Hitler had no interest in exterminating Jews; and that polio was and future epidemics could be eradicated by little more than a few extra paper towels. An X user voiced what at least some longtime listeners instinctively feel about a 15-year-old podcast whose past guests include the likes of Neil de Grasse Tyson and Bernie Sanders 'When Joe first began his show, he showed legitimate curiosity. Listening to people of all perspectives. I wonder what happened in recent years to cause him to have firmly entrenched beliefs.' Rogan's conspiracy episodes are red-pill moments, alright, but not in the way he intends: once you see what he's peddling, you can't unsee it. In some ways of course we have been here before with Rogan. The podcaster had a friendly interview with infamous vaccine skeptic Robert Malone deemed littered with falsehoods, prompting Neil Young and Joni Mitchell to exit Spotify in response. But that was in 2022, when misinformation seemed to matter to platforms. Where we haven't been before is here, in 2025, when Spotify wouldn't even dream of censuring Rogan, lest it send the manosphere into an uproar over 'free-speech suppression' that no one is trying to suppress. Any hope that artists will save us should be quickly snuffed out too; even icons know their power barely matters anymore in the shadow of Silicon Valley. As Young himself admitted when he returned to Spotify two years after Rogan's Malone episode, the platforms are simply too big to fight. 'Apple and Amazon have started serving the same disinformation podcast features I had opposed at Spotify. I cannot just leave Apple and Amazon … because my music would have very little streaming outlet to music lovers at all.' How can you run when you know? On Friday Donald Trump appeared to back Murray, promoting the author's new book on Truth Social at a moment when Murray was taking fire from many MAGA supporters over the Rogan appearance. But coming from a president who has played cozy with election conspiracy theorists and antisemitic conspiracy theorists, appointed a vaccine skeptic to run Health and Human Services and a 9/11 conspiracy theorist as a close adviser, such a post hardly could play as a noble stand for facts and research. More likely it was a clapback at Rogan for his criticism of Trump's handling of Venezuelan deportations. Trump's ulterior motive won't surprise anyone who's followed him the last ten years. But it does underscore how hard up the truth is for friends right now. An Oval Office boost for a man calling for basic sanity on the Holocaust is nice — until you realize the boost was happening because the occupant of the Oval Office wanted to round up people and ship them out of the country. Murray went on Sky News Australia Tuesday to offer his recap of what happened with Rogan. 'When you get pseudo-historians talking, for instance, on Winston Churchill claiming Adolf Hitler wasn't openly antisemitic in the 1930s … you are in very dangerous territory if you leave such ideas out there and leave them unchallenged. I'm all for debate,' he added. 'But what I see in certain realms of the right is not actually a debate.' Of course that assumes anybody in those realms wants one. The good news is that when people go off the deep end conspiracy-wise they tend to see their influence drop too, and if you don't believe that just ask Glenn Beck. The media has a self-regulating mechanism in place; the further flung the theories, the narrower the audience. At least it had a self-regulating mechanism in place. We've never seen the quality of conspiracy-theory storytelling this high (Carroll and Cooper are if nothing else compelling speakers); these once-alternative platforms so large; and the susceptibility of people to disinformation so great. So has wrought two decades of active disinfo-peddling by online and cable news opportunists and (far less often) trust-eroding messups from legacy media outlets. So it leaves us in this place, with a Joe Rogan who believes, or at least believes his audience believes, that Ian Carroll and Daryl Cooper are the proper voices to center, and a fact-oriented thinker like Douglas Murray little more than the foil and sporting fool. Few signs of an easing await either — Rogan's most prominent upcoming political guest appears to be Glenn Greenwald. Rogan is just talking to people. But given a personality who can reach nearly as big an audience as Walter Cronkite in his heyday, we should probably make sure we're doing plenty of listening too. Best of The Hollywood Reporter Most Anticipated Concert Tours of 2025: Beyoncé, Billie Eilish, Kendrick Lamar & SZA, Sabrina Carpenter and More Hollywood's Highest-Profile Harris Endorsements: Taylor Swift, George Clooney, Bruce Springsteen and More Most Anticipated Concert Tours of 2024: Taylor Swift, Bad Bunny, Olivia Rodrigo and More
Wall Street Journal
01-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Wall Street Journal
Debra Messing Felt Isolated as a Kid. ‘I Love Lucy' Became Her Escape.
Debra Messing, 56, is known for her roles in TV's 'Will & Grace' and 'The Starter Wife.' She executive produced the new documentary 'October 8' and co-stars in the new crime-drama film 'The Alto Knights.' She spoke with Marc Myers. I was fearful as a child. My parents grew up in Brooklyn, N.Y., surrounded by a large Jewish family and friends. When I was 3, in 1971, my father got a job in Rhode Island and we moved to East Greenwich, where there were very few Jews.
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
'October 8' documentary examines the rise of antisemitism in America
The new documentary 'October 8' looks at the rise of antisemitism in America. Emmy Award-winning actress Debra Messing serves as an Executive Producer on the film, and she joins Morning Joe along with Director and Executive Producer Wendy Sachs to discuss.
