Breaking with national union, MN firefighters association endorses Kamala Harris

Declan Desmond
Sun, October 6, 2024 

Stock image of a firefighter using the Jaws of Life.
Credit: Ethan via Flickr

The union representing thousands of firefighters, paramedics and dispatchers in Minnesota has officially endorsed Kamala Harris for president — a move that comes after the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) declined to endorse any candidate in the 2024 race.

Based in St. Louis Park, the Minnesota Professional Fire Fighters (MPFF) announced its decision Thursday, saying the Harris-Walz ticket has shown a "dedication to public safety and its track record of supporting first responders":

“Vice President Kamala Harris and Governor Tim Walz have demonstrated time and again that they understand the challenges firefighters face,” said MPFF President Scott Vadnais in a statement. “From securing better healthcare and mental health services to ensuring that fire departments are well-resourced, they have been steadfast allies to Minnesota’s fire fighters. We believe that under their leadership, our profession and the communities we serve will be safer and stronger.”

The decision by the IAFF not to endorse Harris is significant in that it was among the first unions to back Joe Biden in his quest for the 2020 presidential nomination, as Politico notes. 

The organization said Thursday that the IAFF Executive Board voted by a margin of 1.2% not to support either candidate in 2024, adding that the decision came after they took "unprecedented steps to hear our members’ views on the candidates and the policy issues that matter most to them."

This closely mirrors last month's bombshell announcement that the International Brotherhood of Teamsters — also breaking with the tradition of endorsing Democrats — would not be backing any presidential candidate in 2024.

Like the IAFF, the Teamsters cited its polling of rank-and-file Teamsters members, which showed that "a majority of voting members twice selected Trump for a possible Teamsters endorsement over Harris."

The Minnesota Teamsters — like many other state-level Teamsters across the country — also broke from its national counterpart in the wake of the announcement, endorsing Harris and calling her and her running mate, Gov. Tim Walz, "proven champions for Union workers."

Additionally, other major labor unions like the AFL-CIO, United Auto Workers and the Nevada Culinary Workers Union have also announced their support for Harris.

Kamala Harris Helped Save Teamsters’ Pensions. She Still Couldn’t Get Their Endorsement.

Dave Jamieson
Sun, October 6, 2024

When Vice President Kamala Harris met with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 16, she was hoping to walk away with a major union endorsement. The Democratic nominee offered plenty of reasons why she was better for labor than Donald Trump, but she returned to one issue more than once.

“She reinforced the pension thing over and over,” said John Palmer, a member of the Teamsters’ executive board who was in the meeting.

In 2021, Democrats attached an expensive pension bailout to the American Rescue Plan, the $1.9 trillion stimulus package they muscled through the Senate on a party-line vote at the height of the coronavirus pandemic. The inclusion of an estimated $74 to $91 billion to shore up troubled multiemployer pension funds was a small legislative miracle for the Teamsters and other unions – and it never would have happened without Harris.

At the time, the Senate had 50 members caucusing with Democrats and 50 with Republicans, with Harris, as president of the chamber, serving as the tie-breaker to end deadlocks. She cast the deciding vote in a crucial step known as themotion to proceed, allowing the stimulus package to advance with zero Republican support.

But two days after the meeting with Harris, Teamsters President Sean O’Brien announced that the 1.3 million-member union would not be backing Harris or Trump. The controversial non-endorsement effectively boosted the Trump campaign, since it marked the first time since 1992 that the Teamsters didn’t support a Democrat for the White House. O’Brien also gave Trump a lift by releasing internal polls showing members preferred the former Republican president over Harris.



The Biden-Harris administration carried out their promise to solve the Teamsters’ pension problems. That alone should be enough to cement a commitment from the IBT.Jim Hoffa, former longtime Teamsters president

Many O’Brien critics are angry that the union could look past the pension rescue, to say nothing of Trump’s hostility to unions during his first term. The Teamsters’ Central States pension fund was the biggest plan facing insolvency, with thousands of Teamsters facing benefit cuts so steep it would threaten their retirements.

“The Biden-Harris administration carried out their promise to solve the Teamsters’ pension problems,” Jim Hoffa, the union’s former longtime president who preceded O’Brien, said in an interview. “That alone should be enough to cement a commitment from the IBT.”

Local Teamsters councils covering a majority of the union’s members across the U.S. have since come out for Harris, often citing the pension issue, among others.

Kara Deniz, a Teamsters spokesperson, said there were a number of factors that played into the executive board’s decision to stay out of the presidential race. She cited conflicting surveys of Teamsters membership: Early town hall straw polls suggesting members backed President Joe Biden when he was the presumptive Democratic nominee, and later online and phone polls showing they backed Trump over Harris after she replaced Biden atop the ticket. (Town halls would tend to draw a lot of union activists, which could partly explain the discrepancy.)

Deniz also said the union couldn’t secure important commitments from Harris in their Washington meeting. That included a guarantee to keep Biden antitrust chief Lina Khan atop the Federal Trade Commission, and a promise not to intervene in potential Teamster work stoppages like the rail strike Biden and Congress preempted in 2022.

She said the Teamsters shouldn’t be beholden to Harris or Democrats just because they bailed out the pension funds.

“If a party does one thing, does this mean that we owe a single party forever?” she said. “There were a lot of other issues that were important that were discussed.”

Teamsters President Sean O'Brien shakes hands with workers during a rally. O'Brien took the unusual step of speaking at the RNC as the leader of a major union. 

PATRICK T. FALLON via Getty Images

Deniz said O’Brien was not available for an interview. After announcing the non-endorsement, O’Brien told PBS NewsHour that Democrats helped create the Teamsters’ pension problems in 1980 by voting to deregulate the trucking industry under then-President Jimmy Carter, leading to an influx of non-union firms that reduced Teamster membership. “Should I look for praise for fixing a problem I helped create?” he asked.

O’Brien himself is a trustee of the New England Teamsters Pension Plan. That plan was on track to run out of funding by 2028, but now it will receive $5.7 billion in federal money due to Democrats’ stimulus package, according to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the government-run entity that insures defined-benefit pensions. Without that funding, the plan’s 72,000 recipients could have seen their benefit payments slashed by roughly 75%.

Palmer, who plans to challenge O’Brien for the union’s presidency in 2026, said he was one of three executive board members who voted to endorse Harris, while 14 voted to endorse no one. (Trump received no votes, he said.) O’Brien made the case that backing Harris would defy members’ wishes, Palmer said, and he believes O’Brien’s position influenced the thinking of other board members.

Palmer argued the non-endorsement would prove to be “very costly.”

“We’re not here to reflect members’ polling,” he said. “We’re here to make sure facts are put forward to members so they can make an educated choice.”
‘Playing Sweden’

The Teamsters executive board’s decision not to endorse has put headquarters at odds with its many local bodies that have come out for Harris.

That includes Joint Council 43 in the critical swing state of Michigan, with 32,000 Teamsters. The council’s board had voted unanimously to back Harris before O’Brien announced the Teamsters would stay neutral, said Kevin Moore, the council’s president. He said they decided not to go public until after O’Brien and leadership made their call.

“I’m not going to second-guess the general president,” Moore said. “I just know this: in Michigan there was never another choice for us.”

Moore said electing Harris and other Democrats is crucial to maintaining union strength in his state. He noted that Democrats repealed Michigan’s right-to-work law last year after wresting control of the statehouse from Republicans, the first time a state had done so in nearly 60 years.

We get elected for a reason: not only to represent our members, but to safeguard our organization.Bill Carroll, president of Teamsters Joint Council 39 in Wisconsin.

But the pension issue loomed large in the council’s decision as well, he added. After all, Michigan Teamsters are part of the Central States plan that Harris and other Democrats voted to rescue.

“That’s why there was so much anger here in Michigan about the [non-] endorsement,” Moore said.

O’Brien’s relationship with Trump goes back to at least January, when he met with the former president at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida. O’Brien later sought and accepted a speaking slot at the Republican National Convention, a controversial move given Trump’s anti-union record and attempts to overturn the legitimate 2020 election results. In his speech he urged both parties to support labor, and praised Trump as “one tough SOB.”

Some Teamsters believe O’Brien’s public overtures to the GOP started out as an attempt to solidify support among the union’s conservative-leaning members. It also couldn’t hurt to get on the winning side — when O’Brien addressed the RNC, Trump was polling ahead of the Democrats’ then-presumptive nominee, Joe Biden, making it seem likely the union would have to deal with another Trump administration.

Others theorize that O’Brien felt snubbed by Democrats when they turned him down for a speaking slot at their own convention.

Deniz called such speculation “absolutely absurd,” and said internal politics played no role in O’Brien’s Republican outreach. She said a Teamsters survey indicated more than two-thirds of members thought it was important for him to address the RNC.

Chad Bartholomew, a Teamster and delivery driver in Washington state, said he was glad to see the union stay out of the race. Bartholomew supports Trump and believes he’d be better at handling the economy and keeping inflation down. He doesn’t see it as the union’s job to get involved in national politics. He was annoyed when his local threw its backing behind Harris.

“We’re better off to play Sweden in this and be neutral,” Bartholomew said.

Kevin Brisky, a former Teamsters shop steward who retired from a Coca-Cola bottling plant in Minnesota in 2018, said he was dismayed to see many younger, male coworkers drifting toward Trump during the 2016 election. He felt they needed to be schooled on “what party does what for us, and what party does nothing for us.” He viewed the non-endorsement as a cop-out.

“You’re an elected leader,” he said of O’Brien. “You’ve got to make decisions.”

Most major unions have lined up behind Kamala Harris since she became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. via Associated Press

The phone survey of 900 rank-and-file members, run by Democratic pollster Lake Research Partners, found Teamsters preferred Trump to Harris, 58% to 31%. Lake Research’s Joshua Ulibarri, who oversaw the poll, said they were “robust surveys” with sample sizes “in the usual range for union memberships.”

“This was solid work and I think pretty good snapshots of how union members felt and — at the time — planned to vote,” Ulibarri said in an email.

Some local union leaders don’t believe the figures.

“I guess I’m not buying it,” said Bill Carroll, president of Joint Council 39 in the battleground state of Wisconsin.

Carroll and the rest of his board voted unanimously to support Harris, a decision he called a “no-brainer.” He doesn’t doubt that plenty of the council’s 15,000 Teamsters support Trump. “I’ve got some members that absolutely had their hair on fire over our endorsement,” he said. But he doesn’t believe they back Trump to the degree shown in the internal polls.

He also said an endorsement is about more than the candidates’ popularity.

“We get elected for a reason: not only to represent our members, but to safeguard our organization,” said Carroll, who’s been a union official for 25 years.

Republicans under former Gov. Scott Walker decimated public-sector unions in Wisconsin, repealing collective-bargaining rights for most government workers, including thousands of Teamsters in public works, Carroll noted. And like those in Michigan, many Teamster retirees in Wisconsin might have received a fraction of their Central States pensions if Democrats didn’t intervene.

Carroll said he and other board members didn’t weigh cultural issues — they just considered what another Trump presidency could mean for unions like theirs.

“We’re dealing with old man Trump here,” he said. “It’s not like a John McCain or a Mitt Romney that might have some middle-of-the-road leanings. The stakes are much higher.”

Boots On The Ground

The real-world effect of the union’s non-endorsement might never be clear, though just about anything could tip the election if it comes down to a few thousand votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin.

The Teamsters aren’t known for having the robust political operation of some other big unions, but in years past, the union has sent staff to help get-out-the-vote efforts for Democrats in the battlegrounds, officials said. Union employees take leave from their normal duties to do campaign work paid through the Teamsters’ political action committee.

A Teamsters spokesperson confirmed that this year’s non-endorsement means it won’t be putting any such resources into the presidential race.

“It basically takes them out of the ballgame,” Hoffa said. “It’s a big help to Donald Trump because the international has decided to sit it out and stay on the sidelines.”

But the joint councils are autonomous bodies, and leaders like Carroll said they do some of the most critical get-out-the-vote work. That includes running phone banks to call members and meeting them on shift changes and in break rooms to hand out fliers on the election. He said his council will be running for Harris full-steam through October, and he expects others around the country to operate similar ground games.

But even Carroll is concerned about the lack of unity and wishes the entire union was moving in lockstep.

“When we speak with one voice, we’re the strongest. When our members are divided and things get chaotic, that’s what causes weakness,” he said. “I’m not sure what the result of all this is going to be. But it certainly isn’t solidarity-forming.”

Bruce Springsteen Says America Has Reached a Civil War-Level of Division in Kamala Harris Endorsement

JD Knapp
Thu, October 3, 2024


While Bruce Springsteen knows his vote is no more important than any other American’s, he is also aware his platform is much more influential than most. As such, the “Born in the U.S.A.” rocker officially endorsed Kamala Harris and Tim Walz on Thursday in an impassioned Instagram video.

“Friends, fans and the press have asked me who I’m supporting in this most important of elections, and with full knowledge of my opinions, no more or less important than those of any of my fellow citizens, here’s my answer: I’m supporting Kamala Harris for president and Tim Walz for vice president, and opposing Donald Trump and JD Vance,” he began.

“Here’s why: we are shortly coming upon one of the most consequential elections in our nation’s history, perhaps not since the Civil War has this great country felt as politically, spiritually and emotionally divided as it does then at this moment. It doesn’t have to be this way,” Springsteen continued. “The common values, the shared stories that make us a great and united nation, are waiting to be rediscovered and retold once again.”

“Now that will take time, hard work, intelligence, faith and women and men with the national good guiding their hearts,” he admitted. “America is the most powerful nation on earth, not just because of her overwhelming military strength or economic power, but because of what she stands for, what she means, what she believes in; freedom, social justice, equal opportunity, the right to be and love who you want. These are the things that make America great.”

The legendary singer then switched gears to explain why Donald Trump and JD Vance are unfit for the White House.

“Donald Trump is the most dangerous candidate for president in my lifetime. His disdain for the sanctity of our Constitution, the sanctity of democracy, the sanctity of the rule of law and the sanctity of the peaceful transfer of power should disqualify him from the office of president ever again,” Springsteen said. “He doesn’t understand the meaning of this country, its history or what it means to be deeply American. On the other hand, Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are committed to a vision of this country that respects and includes everyone, regardless of class, religion, race, your political point of view or sexual identity, and will grow our economy in a way that benefits all, not just a few like me, on top. That’s the vision of America I’ve been consistently writing about for 55 years now.”

“Everybody sees things different and I respect your choice as a fellow citizen. But like you, I’ve only got one vote and it’s one of the most precious possessions that I have,” he concluded. “That’s why come Nov. 5 I’ll be casting my vote — Harris and Tim Walz. Thanks for listening.”

Springsteen joins a growing list of celebrities who have spoken out ahead of the Nov. 5 election.

The post Bruce Springsteen Says America Has Reached a Civil War-Level of Division in Kamala Harris Endorsement appeared first on TheWrap.

Bruce Springsteen Endorses Kamala Harris, Calls Trump the ‘Most Dangerous Candidate for President in My Lifetime’

Jon Blistein
Thu, October 3, 2024 

Bruce Springsteen performing at the 2024 Sea.Hear.Now Festival in Asbury Park, New Jersey. - Credit: Taylor Hill/WireImage/Getty Images

Bruce Springsteen delivered a powerful endorsement of Kamala Harris for president, calling Donald Trump “the most dangerous candidate for president in my lifetime,” and saying Harris and VP candidate Tim Walz are “committed to a vision of this country that respects and includes everyone.”

Springsteen shared his endorsement in a video on Instagram, delivering a short, uninterrupted speech from (fittingly enough) a very classic-looking diner. Along with citing Harris’ and Walz’s commitment to inclusivity regardless of “class, religion, race, your political point of view, or sexual identity,” Springsteen said, “They want to grow our economy in a way that benefits all, not just the few like me on top. That’s the vision of America I’ve been consistently writing about for 55 years.”

Along with heaping praise on Harris and Walz, Springsteen shared some harsh words for Trump. “His disdain for the sanctity of our Constitution, the sanctity of democracy, the sanctity of the rule of law, and the sanctity of the peaceful transfer of power should disqualify him from the office of president ever again,” Springsteen said. “He doesn’t understand the meaning of this country, its history or what it means to be deeply American.”

Springsteen called the 2024 election “one of the most consequential” in U.S. history, arguing that not since the Civil War has the country been so “politically, spiritually, and emotionally divided.”

He then stated plainly, “It doesn’t have to be this way. The common values, the shared stories that make us a great and united nation, our waiting to be rediscovered and retold once again. Now, that will take time. Hard work, intelligence, faith, and women and men with the national good guiding their hearts. America’s the most powerful nation on Earth, not just because of our overwhelming military strength or economic power — but because of what she stands for, what she means, what she believes in. Freedom, social justice, equal opportunity, the right to be in love with who you want.”

Springsteen’s endorsement of Harris and Walz should come as no surprise, as he’s been regularly endorsing (and often campaigning for) Democratic candidates for years. He endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016 and called Trump a “moron” in a 2016 interview with Rolling Stone; in 2020 he gave his support to Joe Biden, even narrating and soundtracking a campaign ad for the future president.

Springsteen joins an ever-growing list of big names — especially musicians — who’ve given their support to Harris and Walz. Others include Taylor Swift, Billie Eilish, Cardi B, Megan Thee Stallion, Barbra Streisand, Bon Iver, Jason Isbell, Maren Morris, John Legend, and Stevie Wonder.

Rolling Stone

Harris is pressed on support for Netanyahu in ’60 Minutes’ preview

Tara Suter
Sun, October 6, 2024 

Scroll back up to restore default view.


Vice President Harris was pressed on the U.S.’s support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in an upcoming interview on CBS News’s “60 Minutes.”

“We supply Israel with billions of dollars in military aid,” correspondent Bill Whitaker said in a clip highlighted by Mediaite. “And yet, Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to be charting his own course. The Biden-Harris administration has pressed him to agree to a cease-fire. [He’s] resisted. You urged him not to go into Lebanon. He went in anyway. He has promised to make Iran pay for the missile attack, and that has the potential of expanding the war. Does the U.S. have no sway over Prime Minister Netanyahu?”

“The aid that we have given Israel allowed Israel to defend itself against 200 ballistic missiles that were just meant to attack the Israelis and the people of Israel,” Harris said in the interview. “And, when we think about the threat that Hamas, Hezbollah, presents, Iran, I think that it is, without any question, our imperative to do what we can to allow Israel to defend itself against those kinds of attacks.”

“Now, the work that we do diplomatically, with the leadership of Israel, is an ongoing pursuit around making clear our principles, which include the need for humanitarian aid, the need for this war to end, the need for a deal to be done, which would release the hostages and create a cease-fire,” Harris added. “And we’re not gonna stop in terms of putting that pressure on Israel and in the region, including Arab leaders.”

The interview is set to broadcast at 8 p.m. EST on Monday, according to CBS News.

Tensions in the Middle East have risen sharply in recent weeks, as Israel recently started limited ground incursions into Lebanon and Iran launched a barrage of missiles at Israel earlier this week.

Whitaker also said during the vice president’s “60 Minutes” appearance that “it seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening.”

“Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of, many things — including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region,” Harris said.

Whitaker then asked Harris if “we have a real close ally” when it comes to the Israeli prime minister.

“I think, with all due respect, the better question is, ‘Do we have an important alliance between the American people and the Israeli people?’” Harris said. “And the answer to that question is yes.”

The Hill has reached out to a spokesperson for Netanyahu’s office and the Harris campaign for comment.

Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Opinion: Why President Biden hasn't been able to end Israel's  year-old war in Gaza

Raphael S. Cohen
Fri, October 4, 2024 at 4:00 AM MDT·4 min read

The aftermath of an Israeli airstrike on a crowded tent camp for Palestinians displaced by the war in Muwasi, in the Gaza Strip. (Abdel Kareem Hana / Associated Press)


As the world prepares to mark the first anniversary of Hamas’ Oct. 7 terrorist attack and the ensuing war is set to drag into a second year with intense fighting on another front, many Americans are wondering why President Biden has been unable to end the conflict.

Contrary to plenty of commentary, it certainly has not been for lack of trying.

Since the war broke out, Biden has visited Israel and had a host of conversations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken has made at least 10 trips to Israel. Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III has also made multiple visits to the country since Oct. 7 and had seemingly countless talks with his counterpart, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. This is all on top of lower-ranking U.S. officials’ continuous efforts to engage with Israel.


And yet for all the time and effort the Biden administration has expended, it has failed to broker a cease-fire between Israel and the militant group Hamas. Meanwhile, the threat of a wider war loomed again this week as Iran launched a missile attack on Israel in retaliation for the escalation of its conflict with the Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Read more: Opinion: Israel's growing war with Hezbollah is traumatizing Lebanon. There's only one path to peace

The Biden administration is hardly alone in its struggle to find diplomatic common ground in the Middle East. Ever since the Oslo accords some three decades ago, a series of American administrations have tried and failed to broker peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

At the same time, although Americans may want wars to be short and relatively restrained, they rarely are. The unfortunate battlefield reality is that any war against a group such as Hamas — with its estimated 30,000 fighters and hundreds of miles of tunnels embedded in one of the most densely populated places on Earth — was going to be a long, bloody slog. There is very little that anyone — even an American president — can do to change that.

Biden’s critics counter that the administration could put more pressure on Netanyahu to force a cease-fire. They note that Israel receives billions of dollars' worth of American military aid and depends on American diplomatic cover. They say that provides sufficient leverage to force Netanyahu’s hand. But does it?

Read more: Opinion: This is Biden's chance to end the war in Gaza. Just threaten to cut off weapons for Israel

In practice, the United States often has less influence over its allies than one might think. Historically, economic sanctions have a poor track record of forcing major concessions, particularly when existential security matters are at stake — which, in Israel’s case, they are. Indeed, threats to sanction the hard-right elements of Netanyahu’s coalition have yet to produce any sort of moderation. At the same time, the International Criminal Court’s announcement that it would seek arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant produced what few other policies could: It united Israel’s fractured political spectrum around the current government.

Even if U.S. pressure were effective enough to motivate the Netanyahu government to try to end the war, it still might not succeed. Ending the war, after all, would require the cooperation of both Israel and Hamas — and more specifically Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, who shows no signs of budging.

Sinwar could unilaterally declare a cease-fire, release all the remaining Israeli hostages and deny Israel one of its core justifications for the war. But Hamas seems intent on executing hostages and otherwise doubling down on the hostilities. Presumably, despite all the devastation and suffering in Gaza, Sinwar on some level still believes that he is winning.

Even if America had successfully secured a bilateral cease-fire, it would be unlikely to produce a lasting peace. Indeed, all the structural and political reasons that have prevented peace for decades remain.

Because Israel would have to free hundreds of militants serving life sentences for murder in exchange for the release of remaining hostages, Hamas’ ranks would swell during a cease-fire. Eventually the battered organization would rebuild and strike again. Moreover, regional spoilers — most notably Iran — view a continuing proxy conflict with Israel as being in their strategic interest.

A year in, the Biden administration’s diplomatic offensive has yielded some modest results. The rate of casualties — even as reported by Gaza’s Hamas-controlled Health Ministry — has slowed. Aid to Gaza’s civilians, albeit insufficient, is flowing. More than three-fifths of the hostages taken on Oct. 7 have either been freed or recovered, although 97 have not. And, most important, a full-blown, regional Middle East war — widely feared at several junctures over the last year — has been averted, at least for the moment.

All that is admittedly cold comfort to the Palestinians caught in the crossfire, the Israeli hostages who remain in Gaza and the growing displaced populations of southern Lebanon and northern Israel.

In the wake of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Americans have become far more aware of the bounds of what military power can achieve. But other tools of national power, including diplomacy, have their limits too. Outside mediators can’t end this war, particularly if the combatants themselves don’t want to stop fighting.

Raphael S. Cohen is the director of the strategy and doctrine program at Rand Project Air Force and of the national security program at the Pardee Rand Graduate School.

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Why the U.S. probably can't stop Israel from widening the war in Lebanon

Tracy Wilkinson
Fri, October 4, 2024

Smoke rises from the site of an Israeli airstrike in Dahiyeh, a suburb of Beirut, on Oct. 3, 2024. (Hassan Ammar / Associated Press)


The relationship between Israel and its closest and most reliable ally, the United States, has started to feel like a case of unrequited love.

Despite being sidelined repeatedly by Israel over the last year, the Biden administration keeps up its nearly unquestioning support — even as Israel all but ignores American efforts to contain the violence and rein in its behavior.

This week, the U.S. government is publicly backing Israel’s march into southern Lebanon, the first such incursion in nearly two decades. The U.S. also supports Israel’s anticipated retaliation against Iran after Tehran’s bombardment of its archrival this week. Both actions could easily push the region into all-out war, a conflict Washington says it doesn’t want.


U.S. officials insist they are working to avert a wider war. But they have little to show for the effort so far. It wasn’t always so hard.

The United States gives Israel around $3 billion a year in aid and much of it in weapons: 2,000-pound bombs, sophisticated air-defense systems, even ammunition. The two countries have long shared intelligence, political goals and foreign policy agendas, and successive U.S. administrations have had considerable sway over Israel and its decisions that had global effects.

An Israeli Apache helicopter releases flares near the border with Lebanon, as seen from northern Israel on Oct. 2, 2024. (Baz Ratner / Associated Press)

That ability appears to have waned in the last year, for a variety of reasons, some less obvious than others.

The unprecedented scale — and horror — of the Oct. 7 attack is one.

A year ago, Hamas-led militants based in the Gaza Strip swept into southern Israel, killing around 1,200 people, maiming many more and kidnapping around 250.

Before that, the Biden administration had kept its distance from the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu because of its radically racist anti-Arab, anti-democratic members. Netanyahu had also been exploiting U.S. partisan politics in recent years, openly courting GOP favor and eschewing the usual Israeli policy of staying neutral in American politics.

After Oct. 7, there was a outpouring of support from the United States. President Biden hopped on Air Force One to pledge American backing. U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, evoking his own Jewish faith, traveled to Israel 10 times in as many months, trying to address concerns and contain the potential violence.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken arrives in Amman, Jordan, in January, one of his many visits to the Middle East during the Israel-Hamas war. (Evelyn Hockstein / Associated Press)

Netanyahu appears to have read that early administration response as a near-blanket endorsement for an open-ended invasion of Gaza. More than 41,000 Palestinians have been killed in that assault, Gaza officials estimate. The authorities do not differentiate between civilian and combatant deaths.

“The Israelis saw this as essentially a green light,” said Steven Cook, a senior fellow specializing in the Middle East at the Council on Foreign Relations.

At the same time, Israelis, and particularly Netanyahu, have increasingly resisted pressure and advice from the Biden administration when it comes to dealing with Palestinians and other perceived security threats, exerting greater independence.

“Over a period of time, the Israelis have come to believe that the administration has not given them good advice [and] they are determined ... to change the rules of the game,” Cook said.

Increasingly emboldened, Netanyahu repeatedly outplayed and misled U.S. officials, according to people with knowledge of talks aimed at halting hostilities and freeing Israeli hostages.

After having laid waste to much of northern and central Gaza, Israel promised U.S. officials it would not do the same in the southern city of Rafah, where a million Palestinians were sheltering.

Yet as each day passed in the spring, Israeli airstrikes gradually chopped away at Rafah. In recent months, U.S. officials say Netanyahu backed out of cease-fire agreements for Gaza even as some of his spokespeople, such as Ron Dermer, who has the ear of U.S. officials, said Israel was on board.

Just last week, Biden administration officials frantically sought a 21-day cease-fire in Lebanon, backed by France and others. They thought they had secured Israel’s agreement.

Then Netanyahu landed in New York for the annual United Nations General Assembly and made clear he would press ahead unfettered in his offensive against the Iran-backed Hezbollah organization in Lebanon.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 27, 2024. (Richard Drew / Associated Press)

In turning a deaf ear to U.S. entreaties, Netanyahu seems to be taking advantage of Biden’s emotional affinity for Israel and of the political timing that ties the lame-duck president’s hands.

Biden is among the last of the old-school U.S. congressional lawmakers who were reared in the post-Holocaust period where an emerging Israel struggled for its survival against greater Arab powers and won. It seemed a noble cause, and Biden frequently has expressed his undying love for the “Jewish state.”

Fast forward to this season just weeks away from a monumental U.S. presidential election, and Netanyahu probably calculates that Biden will not move forcefully to make demands on Israel when it could cost the Democratic ticket votes in a razor-edge close vote.

“American leverage, and Biden’s leverage in particular, is very small at this point,” said Rosemary Kelanic, a political scientist specializing in the Middle East, now at Defense Priorities, an antiwar Washington advocacy group.

“Politically, it’s really difficult to do anything that seems like it’s changing American foreign policy right before an election,” she said.

Even the most minimal challenges to Israel — such as sanctions on Jewish settlers in the occupied West Bank who kill and harass Palestinians, or the brief suspension of 1-ton bombs being lobbed on Gazan population centers — have generated backlash from the Republican right wing.

“We call on the Biden-Harris administration to end its counterproductive calls for a cease-fire and its ongoing diplomatic pressure campaign against Israel,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said after Israel assassinated Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.

By moving aggressively in Lebanon now, Israel may be betting it can operate more freely in the political vacuum created by the U.S. election.

A view from northern Israel of the aftermath of an Israeli bombardment in southern Lebanon on Oct. 3, 2024. (Baz Ratner / Associated Press)

“I see the Israelis pushing to change the facts on the ground as much as they can” before the U.S. election, said Mike DiMino, a longtime CIA analyst based in the Middle East.

In addition to potentially occupying southern Lebanon while the U.S. is preoccupied with an election, Israel could also force the next U.S. president to confront a regional conflict that also involves Iran, experts say.

Netanyahu “has long wished for a big military escalation with Iran that would force the Americans to join, and perhaps to attack Iran directly,” Dahlia Scheindlin, a fellow at the Century Foundation, wrote in the liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz. “The circumstances are ripening in a way they never have before.”

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Christian villages were neutral in the Israel-Hezbollah conflict. That didn't save them

Nabih Bulos
Thu, October 3, 2024 

Smoke rises after an Israeli bombardment in southern Lebanon on Thursday. (Baz Ratner / Associated Press)


For much of the last year, as Hezbollah and Israel traded blows in an escalating tit-for-tat, the predominantly Christian village of Ain Ebel remained mostly out of the crossfire: Hezbollah cadres didn’t use the village as staging ground for attacks, and Israeli warplanes and artillery avoided striking it.

And while Hezbollah-aligned parts of southern Lebanon emptied of residents as the violence increased, many Christians in Ain Ebel and other mixed-religion towns and villages in the region stayed put.

That changed this week when Israel began its ground invasion. About 11 a.m. Tuesday, according to Ain Ebel Mayor Imad Lallous, calls started coming in to residents from the Israeli military, telling them they should evacuate immediately and not return until further notice.

An Israeli tank maneuvers in northern Israel near the Israel-Lebanon border on Monday. (Baz Ratner / Associated Press)


“They told me, as the mayor, I should inform everyone to leave. But we have nothing to do with the fighting, we don’t have any political parties here, no Hezbollah, nothing,” Lallous said in a phone interview Wednesday.

Hours later, an evacuation order came on social media for more than 20 towns and villages, including Ain Ebel.

Much of Lebanon’s south falls under the de facto rule of Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shiite paramilitary faction and political party that the U.S. and Israel deem a terrorist organization. The Shiite majority in the area champion Hezbollah, crediting it for ending Israel’s 18-year occupation in 2000.

Read more: Iran launches missiles at Israel amid ground invasion of Lebanon

But scattered across this region’s tree-covered mountains, tobacco fields and orchards of apples and figs are predominantly Sunni, Christian and Druze towns and villages — most of which are at best ambivalent toward Hezbollah.

Many insisted on neutrality when the Iran-backed group began launching rockets across the border into Israel last year on Oct. 8, a day after allied, Gaza-based Hamas militants attacked southern Israel.

That neutrality has not spared those communities in recent weeks, as Israel has ramped up its assault on Hezbollah with thousands of airstrikes on wide swaths of the country and now a ground incursion.

Smoke rises following Israeli bombardment in southern Lebanon as seen from northern Israel on Wednesday. (Baz Ratner / Associated Press)

Read more: Even before the Israeli ground invasion, Hezbollah was struggling to regroup

Israel says it’s attacking Hezbollah positions, arms caches and infrastructure scattered all over Lebanon’s south. It also accuses Hezbollah of using civilians as human shields, an allegation the group denies.

On Monday, an Israeli strike hit Ibl al-Saqi, another Christian village on the border, wounding the priest there along with several others. The day before that, two missiles knocked down a pair of residential towers in the mixed Muslim-Christian village of Ein al Delb near Sidon, killing 45 people and wounding 58 others, authorities said.

A tally of casualties issued by the Lebanese Health Ministry since Israel began its escalated assault on Hezbollah in September puts the death toll at more than 1,300; it's unclear how many of the dead are Hezbollah fighters, but the toll includes hundreds of women and children, the ministry said.

A wounded girl lies in a hospital bed in the southern village of Saksakieh, Lebanon, on Sept. 24. (Mohammed Zaatari / Associated Press)

Read more: Israel and Iran exchange threats as combat surges in southern Lebanon

That’s why Lallous didn’t consider ignoring the Israeli order. “I couldn’t take the risk,” he said.

By nighttime Tuesday, the village of Ain Ebel was almost completely deserted, with only a handful of residents staying behind while the others fled to a monastery in the nearby Christian village of Rmeish.

“Why did they tell us to leave? I don’t know. I’m as confused as anyone about this,” Lallous said, a note of exasperation in his voice.

Read more: Even before the Israeli ground invasion, Hezbollah was struggling to regroup

As it stands, it was just in time, said Father George Al-Amil, a Maronite priest in Ain Ebel. At 4 a.m. Wednesday, a missile hit a house in the village.

“It was empty and its residents are anyway not in the country,” he said, speaking from Rmeish.

“No one understands why this is happening. We’ve never seen any movement from Hezbollah in these areas.”

An Israeli mobile artillery unit fires a shell from northern Israel toward Lebanon on Wednesday. (Baz Ratner / Associated Press)

The Israeli military did not respond to questions about the evacuations of Ain Ebel and the targeting of other communities.

Confusion has been the dominant emotion among those who left Ain Ebel, joining what authorities say are an estimated 1.2 million Lebanese displaced in the last week. Many are angry, saying that Israel’s actions ensure their homes will become part of the battlefield.

Read more: Airstrike in Lebanon kills pregnant woman, children near border with Israel

That’s what happened in 2006, when the village was the site of clashes between Hezbollah and Israel during a 34-day war, leaving homes destroyed, fields burned and residents besieged with no bread for 20 days. Others echo that point, and reject the Israeli military’s repeated assertion that Hezbollah is using villagers as human shields.

“No one is using us as human shields. If anything, people stay behind to shield the village,” said Jasmin Lilian Diab, who is from Ain Ebel and is director of the Institute of Migration Studies at the Lebanese American University.

She said trauma from earlier conflicts colors how villagers view this one. As a child during Israel’s occupation of south Lebanon, she remembered driving through an Israeli checkpoint to go home, and of hiding under her bed for days during the 2006 war.

“An important reason people don’t leave is also the fear of not being able to return,” she said.

“‘People ask, ‘What if I leave my home tonight, and then like in so many conflicts, we never get to come back? What if I leave my village tonight and it's no longer accessible to me in the morning?’ ”

Diab acknowledged that she, like others from Ain Ebel and areas uninvolved with Hezbollah, had a “complicated relationship” with the group and its entry into a war without the Lebanese people’s consent. But, she said, the anger is “more towards Israel as an occupier.”

Similar fears of history repeating itself are growing in Marjayoun, a Christian town about five miles from the Israeli border and once the headquarters of the now defunct South Lebanon Army, a militia Israel funded to help its troops police occupied parts of southern Lebanon in the 1980s and 1990s.

Read more: What to know about the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, which could bring unprecedented destruction

The Lebanese group, working in concert with Israeli soldiers, was accused of torturing and killing compatriots, forcibly conscripting males over the age of 15 and uprooting families who refused.

On Thursday, after the Israeli military expanded its evacuation list to encompass 20 additional towns and villages, including those stretching north of a United Nations-mandated buffer zone, people in Marjayoun — which thus far has not been included in any evacuation order — girded themselves for a war coming ever closer.

“We’ve heard so many bombs here, even a child can distinguish the sounds now,” said Hassan Al-Abla, a 78-year-old retiree still in Marjayoun. As he was speaking, a bass-drum thump sounded in the air. He raised a finger. “Hear that? That’s the firing sound. Now you’ll hear the impact,” he said. A beat later came a louder bang and a column of smoke rose over a nearby mountain. Al-Abla gave a wan smile.

“See what I mean?" he asked. "This is how it is all the time now."

In the morning hours before the evacuation order for towns and villages near Marjayoun, roads to the north were mostly deserted, except for a few cars barreling past at high speed. During a journey through towns and villages on the road back to the coast from Marjayoun, most places showed no signs of life: no vehicles, no people, only a single stray cat streaking across the road.

The sense of isolation is growing, said Archbishop Elias Kfoury, the Greek Orthodox archbishop for Sidon, Tyre, Marjayoun and other areas in the south. In a telephone interview Thursday, he excoriated the Israeli military for bombing roads linking Marjayoun to other areas in the south.

“People want to be able to go to hospitals or clinics, or their livelihoods," he said. "No one is passing weapons on those roads.”

Asked about what it would mean if Marjayoun too was told to evacuate, Kfoury grew angrier.

"We aren’t in this war. Why are we being targeted? People are living in their homes, and have no link to Hezbollah or any group at all," he said.

“The question should be directed to those who want us out."

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Mark Cuban Asks What's Better: 'I'm Gonna Hit You With A 200% Tariff, John Deere' Vs. 'I'm Going To Give You Incentives To Manufacture More'

Adrian Volenik

BENZINGA
Fri, October 4, 2024 

Billionaire investor and Kamala Harris proponent Mark Cuban recently weighed in on a key difference between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris regarding their economic strategies for boosting U.S. manufacturing. In a discussion about how to strengthen American companies, Cuban highlighted two contrasting approaches: Trump's aggressive tariff policy and Harris' plan to offer incentives.

As Cuban noted, Trump’s plan includes levying high tariffs on businesses such as John Deere that may decide to relocate manufacturing or outsource jobs elsewhere. “Donald Trump is trying to come in with a hammer and say you’re the nail; I’m going to hit you with a 200% tariff, John Deere,” Cuban said vigorously.

However, Cuban questioned whether such an aggressive tactic helps the economy in the long run, comparing it to Kamala Harris's approach, which focuses on offering incentives to companies to manufacture more within the U.S.

Instead of threatening tariffs, Harris's strategy would offer rewards for keeping production stateside, encouraging companies to invest in American jobs and infrastructure.

“Which do you think is going to work better with companies?” Cuban asked. “Do you want to be underneath a hammer — because when you put a 200% tariff on John Deere and only a 10 or 20% tariff on their Chinese competitors, their Chinese competitors are now less expensive than John Deere.”

Trending: ‘Scrolling to UBI': Deloitte's #1 fastest-growing software company allows users to earn money on their phones – invest today with $1,000 for just $0.25/share

Cuban then pointed to the example of Carrier in 2016. The company faced a 35% tariff under Trump but managed to navigate it by laying off workers instead of returning jobs to the U.S. As Cuban puts it, “They just gamed the system.” He thinks this kind of result is unhelpful and harms American workers more than it helps.

Ultimately, Cuban posed the question: Which is better for U.S. manufacturing—Trump's heavy-handed tariffs or Harris's incentives? For Cuban, the answer is clear: offering companies incentives is the better way forward if the goal is to promote long-term growth, job creation, and economic stability in the U.S.

What Do Economists Think?

Economists tend to be skeptical of high tariffs like the ones Donald Trump has championed. Tariffs drive up the cost of imported goods, pushing consumer prices and production costs for businesses that depend on international supply networks.

Many contend that tariffs can also have unfavorable knock-on consequences on the economy, as they can trigger retaliatory tariffs from other nations, impede international trade, and eventually lower economic efficiency. According to a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Trump's tariffs increased consumer prices without significantly benefiting U.S. workers.

On the other hand, proponents of tariffs argue that they can protect critical industries, especially those related to national security or strategic importance. That said, most economists still agree that tariffs are a blunt tool with limited long-term efficacy.


© 2024 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

 Megyn Kelly says Harris message ‘working’: ‘She’s somehow getting through'

Dominick Mastrangelo
Fri, October 4, 2024 



Pundit Megyn Kelly said she thinks Vice President Harris is promoting a message that is resonating with voters, particularly on the economy, and could spell defeat for former President Trump in next month’s presidential election.

“They care most about inflation, and they’re evenly split now on that issue,” Kelly said during a recent episode of her podcast. “They say there’s a few explanations for it — the first is that Harris’s message on the economy has broken through.”

“Another is that Trump’s attempt to link her to Bidenomics, I mentioned this earlier, has not been as effective as Republicans had hoped,” she added.

Trump’s best issue against Harris, Kelly noted, is immigration saying “he has his largest lead over her there, 51-42. But that’s a 5-point drop from where he was over Harris in August.”

Kelly’s comments were first highlighted by Mediaite.

“It’s working. She’s somehow getting through,” Kelly said, suggesting Trump should participate in the planned appearance on CBS’s “60 Minutes” — which was later scrapped by the GOP nominee’s campaign — in order to counter Harris’s messaging.

A former Fox News anchor who has clashed with Trump in the past, Kelly is sharply critical of Democrats and media outlets on a regular basis.

She recently attacked ABC’s David Muir and Linsey Davis, who moderated the debate last month between Harris and the former president, and has warned that Trump’s “rambling” on the campaign trail could cost him.

Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Couple in Harris ad are Republican farmers, not Democratic actors | Fact check

Hannah Hudnall, USA TODAY
Fri, October 4, 2024 

The claim: Former Trump supporters in Harris ad are actually Democratic actors

An Oct. 2 Instagram post (direct link, archive link) shows a Sky News anchor reporting that Vice President Kamala Harris released a campaign ad featuring two Democratic actors."Harris / Walz Campaign BUSTED for using two paid actors to pretend they were former Pennsylvania Farmers & Trump Voters who switched to Kamala," reads text within the post, which was originally shared on X, formerly Twitter. "Turns out the two were not only actors but democrat donors for years."

The Instagram post garnered more than 600 likes in a day. Similar versions of the claim were shared on Facebook and X.

More from the Fact-Check Team: How we pick and research claims | Email newsletter | Facebook page

Our rating: False

The couple in Harris' ad debunked the claim. They said they are farmers and lifelong Republicans who previously voted for former President Donald Trump, not Democratic actors. Sky News issued a correction on the broadcast before the Instagram post was made.

Claim that ad featured Democratic actors is baseless

A campaign ad for Harris sparked criticism after her team shared it on YouTube on Sept. 24. The ad features a Pennsylvania couple named Robert Lange and Kristina Chadwick Lange, who say they previously voted for Trump but are now switching to Harris because of the former president's divisiveness.

Hours later, an X user shared a post claiming the two are actors with a history of donating to Democratic causes. The post, which was viewed more than two million times in less than two weeks, includes screenshots of donations from the nonprofit campaign finance tracking website OpenSecrets. The pictures show donations made by people with the same names as the Pennsylvania couple.

After the X post was shared, Sky News reported the claim in a live broadcast.

But Chadwick Lange told USA TODAY the claim is not true and is based on "very poor research skills."

"The claims that we're Democrats, that we're paid actors and that we have contributed to Democratic campaigns are all lies," Chadwick Lange said. "Bob once donated to the Tom Ridge campaign for Pennsylvania governor in the 1990s and I never made a single political donation to any party."

She said the two are still lifelong Republicans but "cannot get behind Trump in this election."

Fact check: Video shows Kamala Harris ad during Democratic primary race in 2019

The couple, who own a farm in Willistown, Pennsylvania, helped produce a small 2022 horror film called "Hayride to Hell," but they are not professional actors. The movie's website says the film was shot on the couple's farm and the screenplay was written by the two, but they are not listed as actors. They told Philadelphia outlet Savvy Main Line they had "very small, non-speaking roles as monsters" in the film. Lange is chair of the Willistown Township's board of supervisors and has long been listed by the Willistown-Malvern Republican Committee as one of the party's local elected officials.Lange told WPVI-TV in Philadelphia that he voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020, while Chadwick Lange said she voted for the former president in 2016 and chose not to vote for Trump or President Joe Biden in the next election.

Sky News took down its broadcast and issued a correction on Oct. 1, the day before the Instagram post was shared.

"During a discussion about a Kamala Harris campaign video on the program on Sept. 26, the people featured in the campaign ad were described as actors with a history of donating to the Democrats," the correction reads. "In light of additional information which we have been made aware of, we correct the record that the people involved are not actors and do not appear to be Democrat donors."

USA TODAY reached out to the Instagram user who shared the post for comment but did not immediately receive a response. The X user couldn't be contacted.

Our fact-check sources:

• Kristina Chadwick Lange, Oct. 3, Email exchange with USA TODAY

• IMDb, accessed Oct. 3, Hayride to Hell

• Hayride to Hell, accessed Oct. 4, Cast

• Willistown-Malvern Republican Committee, accessed Oct. 3, Elected Officials

• ABC6 News, Sept. 30, Lifelong Republican couple in Chester County faces intense backlash for role in Kamala Harris ad

• Sky News, accessed Oct. 3, Corrections

Thank you for supporting our journalism. You can subscribe to our print edition, ad-free app or e-newspaper here.

USA TODAY is a verified signatory of the International Fact-Checking Network, which requires a demonstrated commitment to nonpartisanship, fairness and transparency. Our fact-check work is supported in part by a grant from Meta.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Couple in Harris ad aren't Democratic actors | Fact check