Latest news with #BibiNetanyahu
Malaysian Reserve
19 hours ago
- Politics
- Malaysian Reserve
FOX NEWS CHANNEL'S BRET BAIER LANDS FIRST INTERVIEW WITH ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU SINCE ISRAEL'S STRIKES ON IRAN ON SUNDAY, JUNE 15TH
NEW YORK, June 14, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — FOX News Channel's Bret Baier will present a worldwide exclusive live interview with Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu on Sunday, June 15th during a special edition of Special Report at 12 PM/ET. This marks Netanyahu's first interview since Israel's attack on Iran's nuclear program and leadership. An encore of the special will also run at 5 PM/ET on Sunday. A transcript will be made available immediately following the interview. FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service and has been the number one network in cable for the last nine years and the most-watched television news channel for more than 23 consecutive years, currently attracting nearly 70% of the cable news viewing audience according to Nielsen Media Research. Notably, Nielsen/MRI Fusion has consistently shown FNC to be the network of choice for more Democrat and Independent viewers, with the most politically diverse audience in cable news. A 2024 Pew Research Center study found that more Americans named FNC as their main source for political news than any other network while a 2023 New York Times/Siena College poll found FNC as the leading single source of news for voters across the country. Owned by Fox Corporation, FNC is available in more than 60 million homes and dominates the cable news landscape, routinely notching the top 10 programs in the genre. FOX News Media Contact: Lindsey Burstiner: 212-301-3294 or
Time of India
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
'Not sure if Israel will get their hostages back': Trump on Gaza issue during AF One gaggle - The Economic Times Video
In a press conference aboard Air Force One on the last day of Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, a reporter asked if the US president thought 'the Israelis and Bibi Netanyahu can get the hostages out,' using the premier's nickname.'I don't know,' Trump replied. 'We're going to find out pretty soon. We're going to know pretty soon.''They're not in good shape,' he added of the hostages. 'Some of them are in better shape than others. A little bit depends on the place where they are, but we'll be working with [Israel] to get them.'
The Independent
25-04-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Is the secret ownership of the Jewish Chronicle stifling criticism of Netanyahu?
More curious goings-on at the Jewish Chronicle, the only paper in British history, so far as I can see, where we are not allowed to know who owns it, or why. This cloak of secrecy led to five of its best columnists to walk out last year – and is now raising questions about the attitude of its new editor. The story begins with a group of Israeli heroes – nearly all of them former heads of intelligence, military or security agencies – deciding that enough was enough. Together, they penned a punchy advertisement criticising the policies and behaviour of Bibi Netanyahu and placed it in two leading Israeli newspapers. It caused quite a stir. The assorted former generals, admirals, prime ministers and police chiefs then decided that the advertisement should be seen by a wider international audience. Donors paid to place the text in the Times, where it ran on April 17 (page 19) – and in the Jewish News, where it appeared alongside a parallel advertisement from Israeli families whose loved ones had been caught up as hostages of Hamas. So far, so normal. The Jewish Chronicle, which prides itself on being the main conduit for Jewish opinion in the UK, initially seemed happy to run the advertisement. But at the last moment, it was pulled. A senior account manager at the JC apologised for refusing it, explaining the editor 'is not comfortable running it.' Now – and I'm sorry to be so basic about this – it is generally understood that advertisements do not reflect the views of a news organisation. That is their whole point. Suitably labelled, they can promote washing up liquid, cars, luxury holidays or political views, and no half-discerning reader would mistake the content as representing the opinion of the editorial side of the business. Editors can, and very occasionally do, reject advertisements if they are misleading or offensive. But this advertisement is clearly the opinion of 18 people who are supremely qualified to speak on the subject of Israel 's security. So, something else must be going on in this particular case. I spoke to one of the signatories, Admiral Ami Ayalon, who headed the Israeli internal security service, Shin Bet, from 1996 to 2000. A former member of the Knesset, he is the recipient of Israel's highest decoration, the Medal of Valour. No armchair woke lefty, he. He said he and his colleagues felt impelled to draft and sign the advertisement out of a conviction that the behaviour of Netanyahu 'is becoming a major and immediate threat to the security and identity of Israel as a Jewish democracy.' The retired security chiefs – they included former heads of the Mossad, the IDF, the police and military intelligence as well as ex-prime minister Ehud Barak – initially placed the advertisement in two Israeli newspapers, Yedioth Ahronoth and Israel Hayom. Even the latter, which was initially financed by the late American casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson and is considered friendly to Netanyahu, had no qualms about accepting it. Ayalon considered that the text had a considerable impact because it was signed by a group of leaders who, together, had more than 800 years of security service. He and his co-signatories badly wanted it to be read by the broader Jewish diaspora. 'Israel is the only country that belongs, not only to its citizens,' said Ayalon. 'It is a state for all Jewish people. Jewish communities abroad sometimes do not understand what we are facing.' 'Jews are paying the price of the policy of our government when we kill tens of thousands of Palestinians. I meet many youngsters in England or America, and they are asking questions. I think it's very important for Jewish communities to understand that there are people who do not support government policy.' The text of the advertisement does not pull its punches. It accuses Netanyahu of some responsibility for strengthening Hamas and thus for the terrible events of 7 October 2023. 'Netanyahu is … propelling Israel to catastrophe – harming the security of the state, damaging its democratic regime and its institutions, and leading Israel to a dictatorship.' The text goes on to call for a state commission of inquiry; the immediate return of hostages under a ceasefire agreement; and an agreed date for elections. Ayalon was astonished that The Jewish Chronicle should have rejected this text. 'I still keep asking myself, 'Why?'' In Israel, he said, it would be unthinkable for the ownership of a newspaper to be secret. 'No, no, no … No way, no way. There's no way to get permission to publish a full newspaper without knowing exactly who is behind it.' 'I almost said 'this is your problem in England,' but I have to admit that I feel it is our problem as well. The Jewish Chronicle represents a Jewish voice, or at least they pretend to represent a Jewish voice. We Jews depend on each other, so I can't say it's only your problem in England.' I asked someone involved in placing the advertisement in three British publications why they thought the JC had rejected it. They suggested that the paper's secret ownership might be a factor. This brings us back to IPSO's very relaxed attitude to the JC and its lapses in editorial standards over the years. You will remember the press regulator declined to launch an inquiry in 2022, partly because the IPSO's chair, Lord Faulks, was reassured by the paper's new owners, not that there is any evidence that he knew who they were. This month, Lord Faulks once again said he would not look any further into the JC's editorial standards after the paper published what seems to have been a planted story which dovetailed with Netanyahu's priorities in Gaza. One of his reasons was that the paper had a new editor. I approached the editor, Daniel Schwammenthal, to see whether he would elaborate on why he did not feel 'comfortable' running the advertisement. He replied: 'As the relatively new editor of a newspaper that serves Britain's Jewish community, I am wary of having our pages used by factions in Israeli politics to fight their domestic battles,' he said. 'This is not a ban; it's a matter of me exercising editorial judgment on a case-by-case basis – and that includes political advertising. 'This particular advert made no reference to Britain and seemed to have been lifted directly from the Israeli press. I certainly don't wish to cause offence to anyone, but I make no apology for my decision.' It would be good if, in time, the new editor could offer an update on the JC's proposed switch to a form of charitable trust, which seems not to have happened. It would also be illuminating to know who has overall oversight of the JC's editorial standards. And, of course, it would be even better if Mr Schwammenthal decided it's ultimately untenable for an editor to be complicit in the secrecy over who's been paying the bills. In resigning from the paper for which both he and his father had written for so many years, the columnist Jonathan Freedland said: 'Too often, the JC [Jewish Chronicle] reads like a partisan, ideological instrument, its judgements political rather than journalistic.' Lord Faulks, the press regulator, appears to see no problem in any of this, even if Israel's most decorated military and intelligence top brass do. IPSO has decided to adopt the stance of a nodding dog. How long before MPs, who were so exercised over the question of who could be allowed to own the Telegraph, start asking questions?
Yahoo
16-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The International Criminal Court is not doing its job
The International Criminal Court (ICC) should intervene only where national legal systems fail – a principle that is known as complementarity. So why has it gone after Bibi Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of a country with a legal system so independent that he is already on trial there? And why, with so much evidence, is no living Palestinian terrorist facing arrest by the ICC in connection with the Hamas-led October 7 attacks on Israel? Next week a panel of senior parliamentarians led by historian Lord Roberts of Belgravia will publish the 7 October Parliamentary Commission Report. The ICC should pay attention. For the report is expected to offer harrowing insight into the barbaric acts carried out by Hamas. October 7 was no ordinary terrorist act. The catalogue of crimes included murder, hostage-taking, arson, mutilation and rape – much of it recorded and live-streamed by Hamas. Even corpses were kidnapped. Israel had been routinely condemned for its blockade of Gaza which critics said was grossly disproportionate. But by 7 October Hamas had amassed vast quantities of advanced weapons and munitions. Far from being disproportionate, the blockade had in fact been far less than adequate. There is no doubt that Hamas intended to launch a widespread attack against the civilian population in Israel. Under international law, acts of extermination, murder, torture or rape committed as part of such an attack against civilians amount to crimes against humanity. Under the Genocide Convention, acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group may amount to genocide. That is what Hamas intended – and still intends. Much is being said about the alleged disproportionality of Israel's response. But proportionality is a much-misunderstood concept. Belligerents must ensure that in every attack the risk to civilian life or property is not excessive in relation to the military advantage they anticipate. What counts as excessive? It depends on the circumstances. In the past, grim ratios between combatant and civilian deaths are believed to have been employed by countries, including Western ones. Grim though they might be, the fact that they exist means that those belligerents are seeking to abide by the basic principles of the law of armed conflict: distinguish between civilians and combatants at all times, and never deliberately target the former. But the destruction of civilian life was Hamas's central objective. Proportionality also defines the measure of what overall a state can do in self-defence. The overall military force must be proportionate to the objective of stopping and repelling the attack and, where that attack was not an isolated occurrence, preventing future ones. With an attack on the scale of 7 October, and an enemy that controls territory and resources and publicly shares its intention to plan more attacks, it can hardly be suggested that Israel's legitimate self-defence objectives have been met. Imagine if scores of small towns and villages had been destroyed in Britain, with thousands killed and wounded, and hundreds raped, mutilated or taken hostage. And then imagine the enemy sitting a stone's throw away, continuing to launch rockets and planning more. What would be a proportionate response? The leaders of Hamas were so bent on the destruction of Jewish life that they orchestrated and executed the biggest pogrom against Jews since the Holocaust. The ICC should be acting against them, not Netanyahu. Lord Verdirame KC specialises in public international law Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
16-03-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
The International Criminal Court is not doing its job
The International Criminal Court (ICC) should intervene only where national legal systems fail – a principle that is known as complementarity. So why has it gone after Bibi Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of a country with a legal system so independent that he is already on trial there? And why, with so much evidence, is no living Palestinian terrorist facing arrest by the ICC in connection with the Hamas-led October 7 attacks on Israel? Next week a panel of senior parliamentarians led by historian Lord Roberts of Belgravia will publish the 7 October Parliamentary Commission Report. The ICC should pay attention. For the report is expected to offer harrowing insight into the barbaric acts carried out by Hamas. October 7 was no ordinary terrorist act. The catalogue of crimes included murder, hostage-taking, arson, mutilation and rape – much of it recorded and live-streamed by Hamas. Even corpses were kidnapped. Israel had been routinely condemned for its blockade of Gaza which critics said was grossly disproportionate. But by 7 October Hamas had amassed vast quantities of advanced weapons and munitions. Far from being disproportionate, the blockade had in fact been far less than adequate. There is no doubt that Hamas intended to launch a widespread attack against the civilian population in Israel. Under international law, acts of extermination, murder, torture or rape committed as part of such an attack against civilians amount to crimes against humanity. Under the Genocide Convention, acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group may amount to genocide. That is what Hamas intended – and still intends. Much is being said about the alleged disproportionality of Israel's response. But proportionality is a much-misunderstood concept. Belligerents must ensure that in every attack the risk to civilian life or property is not excessive in relation to the military advantage they anticipate. What counts as excessive? It depends on the circumstances. In the past, grim ratios between combatant and civilian deaths are believed to have been employed by countries, including Western ones. Grim though they might be, the fact that they exist means that those belligerents are seeking to abide by the basic principles of the law of armed conflict: distinguish between civilians and combatants at all times, and never deliberately target the former. But the destruction of civilian life was Hamas's central objective. Proportionality also defines the measure of what overall a state can do in self-defence. The overall military force must be proportionate to the objective of stopping and repelling the attack and, where that attack was not an isolated occurrence, preventing future ones. With an attack on the scale of 7 October, and an enemy that controls territory and resources and publicly shares its intention to plan more attacks, it can hardly be suggested that Israel's legitimate self-defence objectives have been met. Imagine if scores of small towns and villages had been destroyed in Britain, with thousands killed and wounded, and hundreds raped, mutilated or taken hostage. And then imagine the enemy sitting a stone's throw away, continuing to launch rockets and planning more. What would be a proportionate response? The leaders of Hamas were so bent on the destruction of Jewish life that they orchestrated and executed the biggest pogrom against Jews since the Holocaust. The ICC should be acting against them, not Netanyahu.
