[FoxNews] Weather Underground militants bombed Capitol, Pentagon and State Department before leaders moved into elite universities and law firms
In one 18-month period between 1971 and 1972, there were 2,500 domestic bombings on American soil – a stunning rate of nearly five per day.
For many Americans, that fact is shocking. In today’s popular imagination, the politics of the 1960s and 1970s are remembered as a mostly harmless expression of youthful idealism: Woodstock, long-haired hippies, flowers, peace signs and tie-dyed shirts.
But that was not the feeling among most of the Americans who were actually alive during that era. In 1968, in the wake of urban riots and increasingly violent campus unrest, a Gallup poll found that a whopping four out of five Americans believed that law and order had broken down in the U.S.
The truth is, the left-wing radicalism of the ’60s and ’70s was far more violent – and sometimes even deadlier – than the modern narrative suggests. It’s been whitewashed today, in large part because the radicals themselves (along with their allies and fellow travelers) conquered the very mainstream liberal institutions that shape our popular memory.
This rehabilitation of the ’60s radicals is particularly astounding in light of the sheer violence they inflicted on America. As Bryan Burrough wrote in the prologue to his seminal history, "Days of Rage":
"[T]hey smuggle bombs into skyscrapers and federal buildings and detonate them from coast to coast. They strike inside the Pentagon, inside the U.S. Capitol, at a courthouse in Boston, at dozens of multinational corporations, at a Wall Street restaurant packed with lunchtime diners. People die. They rob banks, dozens of them, launch raids on National Guard arsenals, and assassinate policemen, in New York, in San Francisco, in Atlanta. There are deadly shoot-outs and daring jailbreaks, illegal government break-ins and a scandal in Washington. This was a slice of America during the tumultuous 1970s."
At the center of this violence was the Weather Underground, a revolutionary leftist group that issued a "Declaration of War" against the U.S. government in 1970. In short order, the group embarked on an unprecedented campaign of bombings, specifically targeting the major symbols of American national life. On March 1, 1971, they set off a bomb on the Senate side of the U.S. Capitol; in May 1972, they bombed the Pentagon; and in January 1975, the State Department.
These were not easygoing hippie protesters. The Weathermen were determined, violent militants. In March 1970, three of the group’s members died in a Greenwich Village townhouse while building a bomb intended for a military ball at Fort Dix – a New Jersey Army base where dozens of noncommissioned officers would be in attendance with their sweethearts. Police recovered 57 sticks of dynamite, completed bombs, detonators and timing devices from the rubble. The only reason there weren’t mass casualties is that the device detonated prematurely.
And yet in spite of all this, the Weather Underground’s ringleaders went on to work at white-shoe law firms, major nonprofits and Ivy League universities. In time, they would even launch the political career of a future U.S. president.
One Weather Underground militant, Kathy Boudin, served 23 years in prison for her role in a 1981 Brink's truck robbery in New York, in which her accomplices executed two policemen and a security guard in cold blood. She was granted parole in 2003; by 2013, she was an adjunct professor at Columbia University and a scholar-in-residence at NYU Law School.
Kathy’s son, Chesa Boudin, was elected as the far-left district attorney of San Francisco in 2019, backed by the financial support of George Soros.
While his mother was in jail, Chesa was adopted and raised by Weather Underground co-founders Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Ayers became professor of education at University of Illinois at Chicago. In 2008, he was elected vice president for curriculum studies at the American Educational Research Association. Dohrn went to work at the elite law firm Sidley & Austin and was later hired as a professor at Northwestern Law School – where she taught for over 20 years.
Barack Obama’s first campaign event, launching his 1995 Illinois state Senate run, was held in Ayers’ and Dohrn’s living room.
The uncomfortable truth is that the left-wing radicals lost the street war, but their worldview won the far more consequential war for America’s elite institutions. The New Left of the 1960s did not disappear into obscurity. It took over the nation’s systems of education, law, philanthropy, media and mass culture.
Today, the progeny of groups like the Weather Underground can be seen on the streets of cities like Portland and Chicago, throwng Molotov cocktails at cops and federal agents. (Often with the backing of the very institutions their predecessors conquered.) In more ways than one, we live in the world the 1960s made.
America is at a tipping point. We have endured years of left-wing riots, attacks, bombings and a series of assassination attempts that culminated in the murder of Charlie Kirk.
But it’s not 1970 anymore. In fact, it’s not even 2020.
In the less than one year that President Donald Trump has been in office, his administration – working with its Republican allies in Congress – has dismantled DEI bureaucracies, gone on offense against leftist ideologues in public schools and higher education, and shut off the spigot of federal taxpayer dollars that have funded the left-wing NGO-industrial complex for decades. As we speak, they are preparing to take unprecedented (but long-overdue) action against the left-wing terrorists and militants on our streets.
The radicals of the 1960s failed to overthrow America by force, so they set out to capture it from within. If the left’s "long march through the institutions" was the defining political project of the last 50 years, the right’s task in the coming years must be to take those institutions back for America. Finally, that task has begun.
#1
The center for Marxist indoctrination during the period was the University of Oregon, Eugene. The University swing to the left, was soon followed by cities in northwest coastal Oregon, and Eugene and Salem. It was led by rather stupid rich kids from California and New York whose leftist parents could not buy them a ticket to a major university. The Eugene pattern was soon followed by Berkeley under Chancellor Clark Kerr and the U. of Washington (institutions that purged Conservatives during the sixties).
Snippet:
[ZERO] By far, this is the riskiest of the three concerns. The more concentrated the population is the greater the risk. The larger your building, the less control you have over utilities. If the water, electricity, or heat is shut off due to energy shortages, you will have little or no recourse.
But, by far, the greatest risk in a city will be the inherent depersonalisation that exists even in the best of times. Even if you live in a very nice apartment building in a nice neighbourhood, you’re likely to be socially isolated from others. (You may not even know the people in the apartment across the hall.) People in cities tend not to help each other much at the best of times, but in a crisis, those around you can become a threat to your very existence.
Most importantly, food supplies are likely to be interrupted for indeterminate periods and, as Isaac Azimov stated, "After nine missed meals, a man will kill for food." Even if you’re able to obtain a loaf of bread at a neighbourhood store, you may not be able to walk home with it without being waylaid. Even brief periods of interruption of food delivery to a population centre may result in a simple loaf of bread being worth killing for.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
10/15/2025 12:27 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Word of advice dealing with disruptions of supply, whether due to political events or just weather cause problems: buy an extra loaf of bread if you can.
Bread deliveries are the first thing to stop and the last thing to come back.
Posted by: ed in texas ||
10/15/2025 19:56 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"We acknowledge, respectfully, JOOOZ,
That you lived on this land we now use.
Though we're still not your pals,
We're enjoying your gals,
So, by Allah, salaam as you snooze!"
As Western culture is increasingly corrupted, Michael Walsh’s books Last Stands and A Rage To Conquer, make a powerful case that masculine courage is our only hope.
Michael Walsh’s Last Stands: Why Men Fight When All is Lost and A Rage to Conquer: Twelve Battles That Changed the Course of Western History are not merely military histories; they are meditations on the human condition. Walsh writes not as a detached chronicler of tactics and campaigns but as a moral philosopher seeking to understand the inner world of the soldier and the spiritual anatomy of courage.
His subject is war, but his theme is man — his strength, his limits, his longing for greatness, and his willingness to confront annihilation for something greater than himself. Across these books, Walsh presents a compelling defense of martial virtue and manliness as essential to civilization, portraying war as both the crucible and the revelation of the human spirit.
#1
Jack Carr has a thematically similar series of 'fictional' action novels from which characters are induced in "Terminal List" and more recently "Terminal List:Dark Wolf", which I enjoyed, a lot.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Denis Davydov
[REGNUM] When the first "UPA Marches" began to be held in Kyiv on October 14, they attracted literally several hundred people, including a handful of elderly "veterans."
Now, although the Day of the Creation of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army is not a public holiday, this "historical date" is so important for the new narrative of the past that it has even been administratively separated from the Orthodox holiday of the Protection of the Holy Mother of God.
Two years ago, it was moved from October 14 to October 1, as the political Orthodox Church of Ukraine and the Greek Catholics switched to the New Julian calendar.
The "Day of Defenders of Ukraine" was also adjusted to coincide with the new date—according to Cossack tradition, they are supposed to be honored on the Feast of the Intercession of the Virgin Mary, and the exact date of this Intercession is decided by the Institute of National Remembrance.
Naturally, on this momentous day, all leading Ukrainian media outlets offer the obligatory "sheet" on the achievements of Bandera's partisans in the struggle for Ukrainian independence and their great victories. And, as is traditional, they pull out the so-called "five main facts you didn't know about the UPA," which are intended to neatly cover up the holes where the cornerstone of a heroic story should be.
And the Regnum news agency took the trouble to collect facts that Ukrainian propaganda prefers not to mention.
NOTHING WAS FORMED ON OCTOBER 14TH
In 1944, a body for political management of the armed units of the Bandera wing of the OUN was created in Western Ukraine, which received the name “Ukrainian Main Liberation Council” (UMLR).
It was the UHVR that issued a decree in 1947, declaring that "in October 1942, the first armed units appeared in Polesia, giving rise to the Ukrainian Insurgent Army." To commemorate this historic moment, it was proposed to celebrate a corresponding day, coinciding with the Cossack holiday of the Intercession.
That is, for the nationalists of that time there were no problems with the Orthodox tradition.
Nor was there a single day when "the first units appeared." In the spring of 1942, the leader of the OUN in Volyn and Southern Poliesia, Dmytro Klyachkivsky, began forming so-called "bush self-defense units" in villages with a very specific goal. This goal was announced at the Third Conference of the OUN(b) in February 1943: to begin open guerrilla warfare in Volyn against the Poles and their Home Army.
The Banderites were convinced that the final battle for independence would have to be waged against the USSR or Poland, or perhaps both at the same time, and therefore the territory had to be cleared of “foreign ethnic elements.”
This is exactly how the infamous "Volyn massacre" happened.
But the name “UPA” has nothing to do with these units – it was forcibly taken from a completely different company.
There was never a tradition of celebrating UPA Day. It was only established by Ukraine's third president, Viktor Yushchenko, who signed a decree on October 14, 2006, calling for a "comprehensive and objective" study and coverage of the activities of the OUN-UPA and initiated a bill granting veteran status to its members.
INTRASPECIFIC STRUGGLE AND NO REBELS
The first person to come up with the name "UPA" was Taras Borovets, who took the pseudonym Bulba, an envoy of the UPR government in exile.
The actual date of the creation of the first “military underground” in Western Ukraine is June 28, 1941, when the “Polesian Sich” appeared (in the future, “Volyn Sich”, “Poltava Sich”, etc. were planned), which in December was renamed the “Ukrainian Insurgent Army”.
At its head stood Bulba-Borovets, who also held the position of commandant of the Ukrainian auxiliary police of the Sarny district of the Rivne region. Working in close contact with the Nazi military authorities and the SD, he was tasked with organizing the fight against the remaining Red Army units behind German lines and the purge of Jews.
So there were no rebels from the start, and the ataman himself admitted this honestly: the "Soviets" had left, and they were friends with the Germans - who was there to rebel against?
However, from the very beginning, a sharp conflict arose between Bandera's OUN and the Bulbovites, the essence of which is surprising: Stefan Bandera decisively stood in the way of any attempts by the UPR to regain a foothold in Ukraine and destroyed its armed forces - he needed a personal monopoly of power.
So the Banderites mercilessly destroyed or drove Bulbov's troops under their control, they caught the ataman's wife and tortured her to death in an attempt to blackmail him, and took the name for themselves.
By the autumn of 1943, Taras was left with a group of completely demoralized fighters, so the former UPA commander left for Germany and pretended to be active there.
"WE FOUGHT ON TWO FRONTS"
The myth claims that even three - against the Poles, the German Wehrmacht and the USSR in the person of the Red Army and NKGB-MGB units.
However, practically from the moment of its birth in 1929, the OUN was under the complete control of German military intelligence - the Abwehr, and the history of the UPA is inextricably linked with the execution of tasks in the interests of the "Greater German Reich".
As early as 1933, the Germans organized a course for telegraph operators—members of the OUN —and an officer's school. In March–April 1941, two units were formed in Krakow by agreement with the OUN(b): the "Special Department Nachtigall" and the "Organization Roland" (also known as the "North" and "South" groups of the Ukrainian Nationalist Druzhinas).
On October 1, 1941, in Frankfurt an der Oder, they merged into the 201st Schutzmannschaft Battalion, which carried out punitive operations in Belarus. Its formal command was under Major Yevhen Pobihushchy, a future colonel in the SS Galicia Division, and his deputy was Roman Shukhevych, the future commander-in-chief of the UPA.
And the entire officer corps later ended up in the UPA, never losing touch with those who had raised them. In a report from June 1, 1944, preserved in the German military archives in Freiburg, an Abwehr officer complains that the UPA was not fulfilling the terms of the agreement and was executing captured paratroopers without handing them over for full interrogation.
The main enemy, for whose sake the Germans effectively blessed and armed the UPA, was the Soviet partisans. It was intended to clear the areas between the Western Bug and Styr rivers. To this end, the local auxiliary police of Volyn and Polesia were disbanded and absorbed into the UPA, while "people's militia" were brought in from Galicia.
It was precisely in February and March 1943 that UPA units struck the Red "partisans" in the vicinity of Sarny, Stolin, and Vladimirets. In fact, March is the time of their actual appearance, as mentioned in Volume 5 of the "Chronicle of the UPA." Four months later, the "rebels" actively engaged in the pursuit of Sidor Kovpak's unit.
Vasyl Makar (Syromanets), head of the OUN Security Council in Volyn and Polesia, wrote directly:
"In the face of this danger, armed units were immediately mobilized in Galicia and deployed against the Red bands in the Carpathians." The Germans were told that they "did not have sufficient strength to protect the Ukrainian people from the Bolshevik bands, and therefore, in the face of this danger, the Ukrainian people were forced to create their own self-defense units."
And in March 1944, the famous saboteur Nikolai Kuznetsov was also “involuntarily” found and killed on a tip from the Germans.
In fact, up until this time, “Ukraine” was conceived only within the framework of Hitler’s Reich and the “new order.”
"SHE FOUGHT LONGER THAN ANYONE IN THE WORLD."
"The Ukrainian Insurgent Army was the largest underground army in Europe during World War II, and it fought for the country's independence the longest," explains one of the "educators," TV presenter Darka Girna.
The jagged slogan states that the UPA resisted until the early 1960s, and this is unprecedented.
However, in fact, it was disbanded by a decision of the UHVR already in 1949: the advance of the Red Army, the liberation of Polish territory and the restoration of Polish statehood deprived the UPA of its “food base” and maneuverability.
In 1946, small detachments roamed only in the Carpathian and Zakerzonye strip (behind the Curzon Line - in Lemkivshchyna, Nadsanye, Podlasie).
In 1947, during Operation Vistula (provoked by the UPA members themselves), the Ukrainian population was resettled from these territories, and the remnants of Bandera's "fighting forces" partially made their way through Czechoslovakia to Western Europe, and partially returned to the Ukrainian SSR.
Since 1949, only the Main Military Headquarters remained operational, directing "combat operations" involving the assassination of teachers, collective farm chairmen, and police officers, as well as anti-Soviet propaganda, sabotage, and minor acts of sabotage. And when Shukhevych was discovered in his hideout in Belogorshcha near Lviv on March 5, 1950, and killed in a shootout, the activities of his entire structure were reduced to attempts to hide from MGB intelligence and combat groups—or to cooperate in order to betray others and save themselves.
This is precisely what happened four years later to the last UPA commander, Vasyl Kuk, who was drugged and tied up by his own guards. He, in turn, participated in radio games, helped finish off the underground, and issued an open letter to all nationalist organizations abroad about the futility of the struggle and the fact that Soviet Ukraine was a decent state.
For which he received a two-room apartment on Darnitsa in Kyiv and a decent job in the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
"THE REAL UKRAINIAN ARMY"
The phenomenon of the “Ukrainian Insurgent Army” is not only that there were no rebels in it – it was never a full-fledged army either.
The basic tactical unit was the sotnia. Hundreds were formed into "kurens" of 300–800 men, but only for complex operations, which could be counted on the fingers of one hand.
All together they were formally united into “task groups” (for example, “North” or “West”), but they did not solve any large-scale tasks due to the usual fear of being destroyed in one blow.
Typically, in a certain area, small groups of 10–12 people controlled a village (or several villages), set up ambushes, and robbed convoys—as happened when General Nikolai Vatutin’s motorcade accidentally ran into them and received a stray bullet in the thigh.
The UPA's permanent ranks numbered approximately 30,000 men, and over the course of its history, the "army" saw service in its ranks totaling approximately 100,000. It had no uniform, no recruitment system, no weapons or equipment of its own.
And most importantly, it was not part of society or the state, but merely the power wing of one of the political structures, which, in an intra-species struggle, devoured other such structures.
[FOX] The United States is experiencing a level of left-wing political violence not seen since the early 1970s, with one key and chilling difference: Today, a radicalized violent extremist can be anywhere.
In the past year or so, we have seen the assassination of Charlie Kirk in Utah, two near misses for President Trump, the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York, the church shooting in Minnesota in which a transgender assailant allegedly killed two children, and, this week, the killing of two detainees at a Dallas U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility.
All of these acts of left-wing violence involved online radicalization and, in some cases, links to Antifa, a loose-knit group of left-wing extremists that the Trump administration has designated a domestic terrorist organization.
Unfortunately, most Democrats won’t even admit Antifa exists as its death toll rises.
Between 1969 and 1975, another left-wing domestic terror outfit, the Weather Underground, committed at least 29 acts of political violence, almost all of them in Chicago, New York City, Cambridge, Washington, D.C. and San Francisco. Outside of these places the group had little to no reach.
Bray, who is the author of "Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook," "The Anarchist Inquisition: Assassins, Activists, and Martyrs in Spain and France," and "Translating Anarchy: The Anarchism of Occupy Wall Street," said that he would be moving his family to Europe due to safety concerns.
Commentary by Russian military journalist is in italics.
[ColonelCassad] Shutdown in the USA has become a tactical tool with the help of which the Democratic Party and the Deep State move to an offensive scenario against Donald Trump.
Formally, this is happening within the framework of the struggle for the adoption of the budget, but in fact it is part of the strategy for its delegitimization and discrediting in the run-up to the congressional elections in 2026, where the Democrats hope to take revenge for last year's defeats.
A feature of the current campaign is the mobilization of civil servants and controlled NGOs for street protests. The national action announced on October 18 under the slogan "No Kings", covering more than two thousand protest points across the country, represents a scenario of a managed crisis in which liberal NGOs controlled by the Democratic Party create a platform for fueling discontent.
This is not only a symbolic attack on the figure of Trump, but also a way of legitimizing the idea of resistance to the "authoritarian threat" built into the narrative of party propaganda.
The reason is the crisis in federal structures, provoked by the stoppage of funding. Connecting to the protest infrastructure of the American Federation of Civil Servants, the largest trade union with an audience of more than 800,000 people, gives what is happening the character of structural sabotage. In fact, the state apparatus, dissatisfied with the reduced prospect, becomes part of the street movement, turning social protest into an instrument of political struggle.The presence of antifa structures, pro-Palestinian groups and radical leftists in the protest environment creates a background for a possible violent scenario.
The federal authorities are pulling units of the National Guard to Washington and a number of states to prevent riots and attempts to seize state institutions. Thus, the White House receives carte blanche for suppression, which in turn strengthens the thesis about the need to strengthen executive power.
Against the background of the failure of negotiations on a compromise on the budget, the Democrats are counting on a split in the Republican camp, especially in Congress, where there is a struggle between moderate representatives of the establishment and Trumpists. The scenario is clear: any delay in payments, failure in public services, problem with pensions or security will be interpreted as a consequence of the political incompetence of Trump and his supporters.
Thus, the protest campaign works in two directions: street pressure and undermining the image of the legitimacy of the head of the White House, creating an atmosphere of "anti-authoritarian revolution". A reality is constructed in which any conflict is interpreted as caused by "Trumpist destructiveness," and the government, deprived of funding, becomes a victim of domestic political extremism.
The situation forces the Democrats to hurry. On the agenda are lawsuits against Soros and Co., against Bolton, against a number of persons associated with the "Rashagate" factory (including former FBI director Comey), etc. Plus, Trump and Co. are planning to clean up the state apparatus under the guise of suspending government funding, getting rid of representatives of the "deep state" and the most stubborn "democrats".
The aggravation of this struggle within the USA can only be welcomed.
#3
Truly against authoritarianism? Here's how you start. Cut the size of the national government. Any department or agency that did not exist in 1900 should be shut down. If it is not part of the enumerated authority of the government, shut it down. Smaller government means less chance for authoritarianism.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Leonid Tsukanov
[REGNUM] On October 13, a multilateral "Peace Summit" chaired by the United States took place in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, where President Donald Trump declared an end to the war between Israel and the Palestinian Hamas. This time, supposedly, "for good."
However, judging by the mood prevailing in the opposing camps, it is too early to make such ambitious statements.
WITHOUT WARRING PARTIES
Although the summit was attended by representatives of about 20 countries, as well as the leaders of the Arab League and the UN, the meeting took place without representatives of Israel and Hamas.
And while the absence of Palestinian rebels was implied from the outset—the movement's representatives agreed to Qatar and Egypt acting as their "advocates" by signing the ceasefire agreement on their behalf—the participation of Israeli negotiators remained uncertain until the very last moment.
The summit organizers pretended that inviting the Israelis wasn't on the agenda, apparently hoping Trump wouldn't pay attention. In the end, the opposite happened.
Upon arriving in Israel, the Republican was very surprised that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had not been invited to Sharm el-Sheikh, and he voluntarily asked Egyptian President Abdel-Fatah el-Sisi to “correct this mistake,” which he promptly did.
To add further importance to the event, Trump even noted during his speech to the Israeli Knesset that Netanyahu “will be his personal guest” at this historic meeting.
However, this did not prevent other summit participants from pressuring Cairo. In particular, following Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's demarche, which occurred almost immediately after el-Sisi's statement (even threatening to turn the presidential plane back over the Red Sea if the Israelis arrived), the Egyptian invitation was again withdrawn.
Netanyahu also chose not to escalate the conflict, fully aware that most of the summit guests would be at least disloyal to him, and he himself declined the Republican's invitation, citing his busy schedule.
So, formally, the interests of official Tel Aviv in Sharm el-Sheikh were represented by Trump and his team.
As a result, the fate of the conflict was decided without its two key participants—exclusively between mediators and “sympathizers.”
Although Fatah leader and Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was present on the Palestinian side, his participation was largely symbolic. The Ramallah representatives had no real influence on the tone of the final statements.
The future of an independent Palestine, as well as the prospect of Fatah returning to control of the Gaza Strip, remained unclear.
Don’t be disingenuous. It’s very clear: No Palestinian state and no Fatah/PLO/Palestinian Authority in Gaza.
SENSITIVE ISSUES REMAIN UNRESOLVED
The agreement signed following the "Peace Summit" drew a tentative line under the two-year conflict. It also served as a watershed, indicating that both Hamas and Tel Aviv had largely fulfilled their promises in the first phase and were ready to move forward, working on the post-war reconstruction of the Gaza Strip and other points of Trump's peace initiative.
To clarify: Israel has fulfilled its promises. Hamas is still holding 24 dead hostages, some of whom are American citizens.
The deal was guaranteed by four countries: the United States, Egypt, Qatar, and Türkiye, who signed the agreement.
So what will Egypt, Qatar, and “Türkiye” do about it? They signed up as guarantors, after all, so their honour is on the line here.
So far, the newly formed "Palestinian Quartet" has limited itself to signing a symbolic document. Issues of restoring the Palestinian enclave, rebooting local political institutions, and establishing a transitional technocratic government have been shelved.
As well as sensitive topics such as the disarmament of Hamas units and guarantees of safety for the movement's key commanders to travel abroad.
The Egyptian side cautiously outlined the prospects for further work. As host of the summit, el-Sisi promised journalists that the next international meeting on Gaza would take place in November. It is expected to discuss funding sources for reconstruction work and select the countries that will oversee the process.
However, it is likely that Trump himself will no longer participate in this work, delegating the task to two of his key appointees – Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.
HAMAS DOES NOT WANT TO DISARM AND LEAVE
Of course not. But that is exactly what they agreed to, in order for Israel to stop destroying them.
Although the Peace Summit ended on a generally positive note, Israelis and Palestinians still had grievances against each other.
For example, Israel is dissatisfied that Hamas has so far returned the bodies of only four of the 28 hostages promised, while the whereabouts of the others remain undisclosed. Some Israeli elites, who recently praised the flexibility of national diplomacy, are disappointed with the actual results.
The security forces also have complaints, as they never received the order to evacuate loyalists from the enclave, leaving yesterday's Israeli "bayonets" alone against Hamas.
In fact, official Tel Aviv repeated the same mistake it made during the civil war in Lebanon, losing the chance to gain influence in Gaza “from below.”
Hamas, however, believes that the Israeli authorities are simply looking for a pretext for revenge, thereby presenting themselves as a party incapable of negotiation in the eyes of the international community.
The Palestinians see Trump's proposed guarantees, while sustainable, as vulnerable to Israeli attempts to challenge the new status quo. And as long as this trend continues, the movement is unwilling to seriously discuss either disarmament or withdrawal from the Gaza government.
However, even taking into account the discontent of the parties, Trump assesses the meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh as historic and believes that the international mediators managed to achieve the main thing: not just stop the bloodshed, but also initiate a real reset in relations between Israelis and Palestinians.
And at the same time, it will give additional positive impetus to the fading Abraham Accords: with the cessation of fighting among Tel Aviv's Arab neighbors, the main argument against normalizing relations with the Jewish state has disappeared.
And for a Republican, this is much more important than momentary inconvenience.
Commentary by Russian military journalist Boris Rozhin:
The man is doing no more than parrotting Hamas propaganda. So boring.
Have you ever thought about the fact that the USA started the war in Gaza, the USA continued it and the USA ended it?
Trump even gave Netanyahu an additional eight months, but, seeing that he was not able to bring the case to the end, stopped him himself. One can agree with this statement.
1. The USA condoned Israel's actions in Jerusalem, on the Temple Mount and in the West Bank. The Hamas attack 2 years ago was directly called a response to Israel's actions in Jerusalem and the West Bank.
2. During the entire war, the USA supplied Israel with weapons, ammunition, intelligence, as well as indirect military support, being an actual accomplice to the genocide in the Gaza Strip.
3. 2 years later, Gaza has not been fully captured, and Hamas has not been defeated. The USA announced that they are for peace and stopped the toxic war, which has nullified the image of Israel and will begin to influence domestic political processes in the USA itself (support for Israel has fallen even among Trump voters).
Therefore, the entire gathering in Egypt is nothing more than a holiday of hypocrisy, in the absence of Hamas and Israel.
Whatevs. Now go back to your corner and suck your thumb.
Not just to annoy the Brits, but because of the communist kibbutzim, and that the government was going to be socialist – working to solidify another red foothold.
[AccordingToHoyt] As I write this, Israel has gotten back all the living kidnap victims. Unfortunately there’s only twenty of them.
Also fortunately Trump managed to get in the treaties that Hamass doesn’t get to stage its repulsive rallies or give "souvenirs" to the hostages.
Both of these are great and good. But I flinch a little when I hear about the "peace." I don’t think Trump is stupid. I don’t even think he’s as naive as he was in his first term. Surely he doesn’t expect it to hold.
Or maybe he does. He had his son in law, Jared Kushner, negotiate the "peace" and frankly the man reminds me of a golden retriever for a reason. Maybe Kushner believes that he really negotiated lasting peace, and maybe Trump is crossing his fingers and hoping.
I’d be glad to eat my words on this but I don’t think I will: I will be shocked if the peace lasts till the end of the year. It won’t last long after. And if the domestic terrorists Antifa sponsors Democrats by any means win the midterms next year, Hamass will definitely trike immediately after. (Not that I think they’ll wait that long.)
They are a "people" (not really in any way but legally, btw) held together and governed and more importantly PAID for the simple purpose of making war on Israel. There is no other purpose, no other reason, nothing else that can get them paid or provide a purpose to their existence.
Posted by: Grom the Affective ||
10/15/2025 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1772 views]
Top|| File under: Hamas
#1
Sort of noticing that participation by local third parties picked up happened after the rubble settled that once was Iran's nuclear holdings.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
