World News

Divisions over US support for Israel deepen at State Department on November 9, 2023 at 11:00 am

Published

1 year ago

November 9, 2023

Letters and memos of dissent are circulating among State Department staff. The documents are described as being led by early and mid-career officials staking out a position that puts them at odds with senior leaders.

President Biden has rallied behind Israel’s right to defend itself following the brutal Oct. 7 attack by Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, that killed 1,400 people, the majority of them civilians. More than 240 other people were kidnapped by Hamas and taken back to Gaza as hostages.

But the exorbitant death toll in Gaza, where an estimated 10,000 people have been killed, combined with the fast-track shipment of U.S. weapons to Israel are weighing heavily on U.S. diplomats.

Josh Paul resigned on Oct. 18 from his position at the State Department, where he worked on arms transfers to Israel. He said others at State have reached out to him since his resignation.

“I’m hearing essentially two strands of argument, or of concern,” Paul said in a call with The Hill. “One is, what you might call a moral stand – where people joined government to do good and they don’t like facilitating the massive death of civilians, and they don’t like when there is no space for policy debate about these basic human rights issues.”

The other argument Paul said he’s hearing is concern that the Biden administration’s approach towards Israel is isolating the U.S. in the region and undermining America’s position on the global stage.

“The current policy approach is having massively negative consequences for the U.S. foreign policy, both in terms of our relationships in the Middle East and more broadly in terms of our strategic competition with the People’s Republic of China,” he said.

The president of the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), the union representing the State Department’s Foreign Service members, said employees are caught in a difficult situation.

“We know it’s a fraught issue, we know there’s a lot of emotions involved. No one can be unmoved seeing those images every night on the evening news, and we know that,” said Tom Yazdgerdi, the AFSA president.

These diplomats are tasked with weighing the hard choices of what is necessary for U.S. national security versus what, if any, potential collateral damage may occur.

Yazdgerdi said that State Department leadership, and separately AFSA have met with employee organizations to make sure “they’re being supported” and heard.

“Arab Americans in Foreign Affairs Agencies, American Muslims and Friends at State, Jewish Americans in Diplomacy, these are all employee organizations that we have met with or will meet to make sure they’re being supported because obviously what’s happening in Israel and Gaza has domestic implications here. People feel unsafe, they feel maybe that they’re not being listened to,” he said.

“Of course, we endorse the opportunity for these groups to be heard. From what we’ve gathered, they’ve had meetings with senior leadership, including the Secretary, which is a positive development, he said.

The Biden administration has been walking a fine line, calling for humanitarian or tactical pauses that they hope will preserve Israel’s ability to carry out its military targeting of Hamas and allow an avenue to try and protect civilians.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken, following a trip to Israel, said Wednesday: “We believe there are additional steps that can and should be taken to try to minimize civilian casualties.”

Hundreds of staff in the U.S. Agency for International Development anonymously signed an open letter to Biden calling for an immediate ceasefire and cessation of hostilities, Foreign Policy reported.

And some State Department staff are pushing for the Biden administration to support a ceasefire and strike a more forceful tone with the Israelis in public, including criticism of Israeli military tactics and treatment of Palestinians, according to at least one draft dissent memo obtained by Politico.

Dissent channel memos are considered sacrosanct in the State Department and are supposed to remain private. The channel allows staff at any level to raise concerns to senior officials, in particular the Secretary of State, on opposing views to administration policy.

It’s always controversial if such memos become public, as their release, some say, can have a chilling effect on staff feeling comfortable to raise opposition to administration policy for fear of retribution.

Ben Fishman, who served on the National Security Council during the Obama administration, said the criticisms he’s hearing from State Department staff about the administration’s policy is “a general concern that the administration is not sufficiently addressing Palestinian, specifically civilian Gazan’s concerns.”

Fishman, now a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said he didn’t view the recommendations in the leaked dissent memo as representing a mutiny among State Department staff.

“The truth is, most people I think are reasonable and they understand the basis of this administration’s policy. And maybe they’re disappointed,” he said.

“The bottom line is that the uglier the war gets — it will most likely be ugly not better — you’ll probably see more voices like this. Hopefully we’ll see a change in the direction of the war, but that’s not my expectation.”

While the U.S. position towards Israel is generally shared by Western and democratic governments, Arab and Gulf nations are challenging the U.S. to push Israel to accept a ceasefire and are accusing Israel of war crimes.

The United Nations General Assembly late last month passed a resolution calling for a “humanitarian truce” between Israel and Hamas. The U.S. and 13 other nations voted against the resolution for failing to condemn Hamas’s attack on Oct. 7. Forty-five countries abstained.

In Paul’s resignation letter, he cited opposition to the surge in military support to Israel, criticizing the administration and lawmakers in Congress as acting on “an impulsive reaction built on confirmation bias, political convenience, intellectual bankruptcy, and bureaucratic inertia.”

Paul’s position in the State Department was to review and sign off on weapons transfers in line with administration policy, a process he said filtered through 20,000 arms transfer requests per year and that could be boiled down to a “no; yes; or yes, but.”

What prompted his resignation, Paul said, was that “there was no debate” on the weapons transfers to Israel in the wake of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack.

The administration has not identified what specifically it has sent to Israel, saying it is at least air defense supplies, munitions, armor and rifles.

Biden officials say they expect Israel to carry out its strikes within the bounds of international humanitarian law and there’s a legal debate surrounding how justified military actions are in neutralizing threats compared to the potential for civilian casualties.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), in a briefing with reporters on Oct. 26, said he was not “ready to acknowledge that there is a misuse of weapons” on the part of Israel, and criticized Hamas as using civilians as human shields.

“We know they’re doing everything they possibly can to make it more difficult for Israel to accomplish its military objectives by putting innocent civilians in harm’s way. That’s their objective.”

But there’s growing divisions among Biden’s most ardent supporters in the Senate.

A group of 26 Democratic senators on Wednesday sent a letter to the president asking for more information on how Israel is working to mitigate civilian casualties.

“We respectfully ask your team to provide us with information relative to these two clear U.S. priorities: supporting an Israeli strategy that will effectively degrade and defeat the threat from Hamas and taking all possible measures to protect civilians in Gaza,” the senators wrote.

Israel’s war against Hamas is deepening divisions among nonpartisan American government officials, who are raising alarm that the Biden administration’s ironclad commitment to Israel is failing to take into account key issues of concern. Letters and memos of dissent are circulating among State Department staff. The documents are described as being led by early and…

Business

The Cities Bracing for Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

Published

2 weeks ago

November 8, 2024

Bolanle Media Staff

In the wake of Donald Trump’s recent election victory and his promise of “the largest deportation operation in American history,” several major U.S. cities are bracing for potentially seismic shifts in their economic and social landscapes. As the nation grapples with the implications of this proposed policy, urban centers that have long been havens for immigrant communities find themselves at the epicenter of a looming storm.

Los Angeles, often dubbed the “City of Angels,” stands to lose more than its celestial nickname suggests. As a primary gateway for immigrants, the city’s vibrant tapestry of cultures and its economic engine could face significant disruption. From the bustling streets of Koreatown to the sun-drenched orchards of the Central Valley, the absence of undocumented workers could leave gaping holes in the city’s workforce and cultural identity.

Across the country, New York City, with its iconic skyline and melting pot reputation, faces its own reckoning. The Big Apple’s 5.9 million immigrants, many of whom are undocumented, form the backbone of industries ranging from construction to healthcare. The potential exodus could transform neighborhoods like Jackson Heights and Flushing, altering the very essence of what makes New York a global city.In the Sunshine State, Miami’s tropical allure belies the turbulent times ahead. Home to 2.5 million immigrants, the city’s economy relies heavily on sectors like tourism and hospitality – industries where undocumented workers often fill crucial roles. The potential deportation of these workers could send shockwaves through Miami’s economic ecosystem, from South Beach’s glitzy hotels to the agricultural heartlands of South Florida.

Chicago, the “City of Big Shoulders,” may find those shoulders significantly weakened. With 1.7 million immigrants in its metropolitan area, the Windy City’s diverse neighborhoods and industries face an uncertain future. From the meatpacking plants to the tech startups, Chicago’s economic resilience could be tested like never before.

In the Lone Star State, Houston and Dallas stand as twin testaments to the complexities of immigration policy. These Texas titans, each home to large immigrant populations, could see their booming economies stumble. The construction sites that dot their ever-expanding skylines and the service industries that keep these cities humming could face unprecedented labor shortages.

Out West, the San Francisco Bay Area’s reputation as a bastion of innovation and progress could be challenged. The region’s tech industry, often reliant on immigrant talent, might find itself grappling with a new reality. From Silicon Valley’s coding campuses to the agricultural expanses of the Central Valley, California’s economic powerhouse could face a reckoning. Phoenix, rising from the Sonoran Desert, could see its growth trajectory altered. As Arizona’s urban center, it stands at the forefront of the immigration debate, potentially facing not just economic impacts but social and political upheaval as well.

These cities, along with others like San Diego and Las Vegas, are not just facing potential economic disruptions. They are staring down the barrel of profound social change. Family separations, community fragmentation, and the erosion of cultural enclaves built over generations are all possible consequences of mass deportations. Moreover, the fiscal implications are staggering. Undocumented immigrants contribute billions in taxes annually, often without receiving the full benefits of their contributions. Their sudden absence could leave gaping holes in city budgets, potentially affecting public services and infrastructure projects.

As these urban centers brace for impact, the debate rages on. Supporters of stricter immigration policies argue for the need to enforce laws and protect American jobs. Critics warn of economic devastation and the unraveling of America’s urban fabric. What’s clear is that America’s cities stand at a crossroads. The coming months and years will likely reshape urban landscapes in ways both visible and invisible. From the foods we eat to the services we rely on, from the neighborhoods we call home to the very character of our cities, the impacts of this proposed immigration crackdown could be far-reaching and long-lasting. As the nation watches and waits, these cities – vibrant, diverse, and economically vital – find themselves on the front lines of a policy that could redefine what it means to be an American city in the 21st century.

Bolanle Media is excited to announce our partnership with The Newbie Film Academy to offer comprehensive courses designed specifically for aspiring filmmakers. Whether you’re just starting out or looking to enhance your skills, our resources will provide you with the tools and knowledge needed to succeed in the competitive world of screenwriting. Join us today to unlock your creative potential and take your first steps toward crafting compelling stories that resonate with audiences. Let’s turn your ideas into impactful scripts together!

Business

How Trump’s Deportation Plans Could Reshape Major Cities

Published

2 weeks ago

November 8, 2024

Bolanle Media Staff

In the wake of Donald Trump’s recent election victory, his ambitious plans for mass deportations have thrust America’s urban centers into the spotlight. As the nation grapples with the potential implications of what Trump calls “the largest deportation operation in American history,” cities across the country are bracing for significant changes that could reshape their economic, social, and cultural landscapes.

The stakes are particularly high for metropolitan areas like New York, Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas, and Miami, which host the largest populations of unauthorized immigrants. These cities, along with other major urban hubs such as Chicago, Washington D.C., and San Francisco, stand at the forefront of a looming transformation that could reverberate throughout the nation.

Economic Tremors

Economists warn that the proposed deportations could send shockwaves through urban economies. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s, cautions that businesses would face “significant challenges” if a substantial number of immigrants were removed. Industries such as construction, hospitality, and healthcare—pillars of urban economies—could face severe labor shortages.

Joe Brusuelas, chief economist at RSM, emphasizes the potential ripple effects: “The native-born workforce cannot meet current labor demands.” This labor gap could lead to increased wages, potentially rekindling inflation—a concern that looms large over city planners and policymakers alike.

Community Fabric Under Strain

Beyond economic considerations, the social fabric of cities hangs in the balance. Elena, a Nicaraguan immigrant in Houston, voices a fear echoed in immigrant communities across the nation: “I’m scared… This is my home.” The threat of family separations, particularly in mixed-status households, casts a long shadow over urban neighborhoods.

Immigrant advocacy groups like FIEL are mobilizing, advising clients to prepare for “anything that can happen.” This atmosphere of uncertainty could lead to decreased community engagement and cooperation with local authorities, potentially impacting public safety and community cohesion.

Cities at a Crossroads

As the debate intensifies, cities find themselves at a crossroads. Some, like New York and Los Angeles, have historically positioned themselves as “sanctuary cities,” often at odds with federal immigration enforcement. The impending clash between federal policy and local governance promises to be a defining feature of this new political landscape.

Meanwhile, the logistical challenges of implementing such a massive deportation operation remain daunting. Questions abound regarding detention facilities, transportation networks, and the sheer manpower required to carry out Trump’s vision.

Looking Ahead

As America’s urban centers brace for potential change, the full impact of Trump’s deportation plans remains to be seen. Legal challenges are all but certain, and the resilience of America’s cities will be put to the test.

What is clear is that the coming months and years will be pivotal for urban America. As Jason Miller, a senior Trump adviser, puts it, the plan is to “immediately reinstate” immigration policies from Trump’s first term. For America’s cities, this could mean a period of unprecedented change, challenge, and, potentially, transformation.

As the nation watches and waits, the story of America’s cities in the face of this ambitious deportation plan is just beginning to unfold. The outcome will undoubtedly shape the future of urban life in America for years to come.

Bolanle Media is excited to announce our partnership with The Newbie Film Academy to offer comprehensive courses designed specifically for aspiring screenwriters. Whether you’re just starting out or looking to enhance your skills, our resources will provide you with the tools and knowledge needed to succeed in the competitive world of screenwriting. Join us today to unlock your creative potential and take your first steps toward crafting compelling stories that resonate with audiences. Let’s turn your ideas into impactful scripts together!

Business

Donald Trump Wins 2024 USA Election

Published

3 weeks ago

November 6, 2024

Bolanle Media Staff

Based on the election results, Donald Trump has indeed won the 2024 U.S. presidential election, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris. Here’s an analysis of the key statistics and implications:

Electoral College Victory

Donald Trump has secured the presidency by winning crucial battleground states and flipping some key states that were previously held by Democrats. The final Electoral College tally is still being determined, but Trump has surpassed the 270 electoral votes needed to win.

Battleground State Performance

Trump’s victory was largely secured by winning several critical swing states:

Wisconsin: Trump’s win here was pivotal in securing his path to victory.
Pennsylvania: This state flipped back to Republican control.
Georgia: Another key state that Trump managed to win back.
Michigan: Trump successfully flipped this traditionally Democratic stronghold.

Popular Vote and Voter Priorities

While the final popular vote tally is still being calculated, exit polls provide insight into voter priorities:

Economy and democracy were top concerns for voters.
Abortion and immigration also played significant roles in voter decision-making.

Congressional Control

The election results extend beyond the presidency:

Republicans are set to take back the Senate majority, securing at least 51 seats.
Control of the House of Representatives remains undetermined.

Media Implications

The outcome of this election could be seen as a challenge to mainstream media narratives for several reasons:

Polling Discrepancies: Many pre-election polls suggested a tight race or even a slight Harris advantage in key states. Trump’s victory, particularly in battleground states, may indicate that polls underestimated his support.
Narrative Shifts: Throughout the campaign, much of the mainstream media focused on Trump’s legal challenges and controversies. His victory suggests that these issues may not have resonated with voters as much as economic and policy concerns.
Voter Priorities: The emphasis on issues like the economy and immigration in voter decision-making may indicate a disconnect between media focus and voter concerns.
Electoral Predictions: Many mainstream outlets were cautious about predicting a Trump victory, even as results began to favor him. This hesitancy could be seen as a reflection of broader media skepticism about Trump’s chances.
Underestimation of Trump’s Base: The results suggest that Trump’s core support remained strong and potentially grew, despite negative coverage in much of the mainstream media.

It’s important to note that while the election outcome may challenge some media narratives, it doesn’t necessarily invalidate all mainstream reporting. The complex factors influencing voter behavior and the challenges of accurate political forecasting remain subjects of ongoing analysis and debate.

As the dust settles on this historic election, both the media and political analysts will likely engage in extensive reflection on the factors that led to Trump’s victory and the implications for future political coverage and analysis.