Connect with us

News

US Officials Express Concerns Over Potential Israeli Ground Assault In Ongoing Middle East Conflict

ISRAEL

(CTN NEWS) – U.S. officials are warning against a ground assault in the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, expressing concerns that such a move could lead to a two-front war.

Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and Defense Minister Benny Gantz have promised Israeli troops victory in the current hostilities.

Following Joe Biden’s recent one-day visit to Israel, there are growing concerns among US officials about the potential consequences of a ground assault in Gaza.

The expectation of a substantial Israeli military invasion, aimed at dismantling Hamas entirely, has raised the specter of a two-front war.

This heightened military determination became apparent as both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant made a visit to the troops stationed along the Gaza border, where they delivered promises of victory and reassurance of their unwavering commitment to the mission.

As President Biden was on his flight back to Washington after a day of discussions in Israel, he was questioned about the likelihood of a large-scale ground assault by the 300,000-strong Israeli military forces amassed along the border.

While the President acknowledged that discussions had taken place regarding potential alternatives to a full-scale invasion, he refrained from divulging specific details.

Biden’s remarks come in the wake of a statement by Lt Col Richard Hecht, a spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces, who, for the first time, cast some doubt on the inevitability of a ground invasion.

Lt Col Hecht emphasized the IDF’s preparations for the next phases of the conflict but refrained from confirming that a ground offensive was the sole course of action, leaving room for the possibility of alternative approaches.

Following a breach of the border wire around Gaza by Hamas insurgents, a tragic incident occurred, resulting in the loss of approximately 1,400 lives, predominantly civilians.

Furthermore, over 200 individuals were taken hostage during this ordeal.

In response, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly vowed to “eliminate Hamas,” and there was a notable deployment of military assets, including tanks, in southern Israel, signaling a potential military action.

However, the anticipated assault was temporarily postponed as U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken embarked on a regional tour, and Israeli officials received a series of diplomatic visitors from Washington, including Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, General Michael Kurilla of the Central Command, and eventually President Biden himself.

Their collective message was clear: to avoid repeating the hasty military responses made by the U.S. in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, prioritizing a strategic approach over immediate reaction.

A former high-ranking American commander in the Middle East expressed concerns about the significant challenges involved in a major urban operation to dismantle both Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Equally pressing is the absence of a well-defined post-conflict plan.

The issue of Hezbollah’s potential involvement also looms large, with U.S. officials cautioning against a full-scale ground assault due to the risk of reprisals from Hezbollah in the north and the possibility of a two-front war.

Escalating tensions on the Lebanese border have already led to daily skirmishes. Moreover, it’s feared that such an assault could result in a humanitarian crisis for which Israel would bear responsibility, with no guaranteed success in eradicating Hamas, potentially fueling a new generation of Palestinian recruits in Gaza and the West Bank.

Nonetheless, the status quo, leaving Hamas in control of Gaza, remains an untenable option, especially after an attack that resulted in the largest loss of Jewish lives since the Holocaust.

A senior Israeli security official revealed that their American counterparts had been engaging in discussions about the lessons learned from the U.S. military’s experiences, particularly the mistakes made in Iraq.

However, this Israeli official emphasized the unique nature of their situation, contrasting it with the cities like Fallujah, Baghdad, or Basra.

They pointed out that their homes were mere kilometers away from Khan Younis and Gaza City, with Israeli villages situated remarkably close to the Palestinians who invaded them the previous Saturday.

Since Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007, Israel had already been involved in three significant conflicts with the group before the recent Hamas attack.

Each campaign aimed to contain the militant group, following a military strategy known as “mowing the grass,” acknowledging that the threat would persist.

Israel regards the threat from Hezbollah on the Lebanese border similarly.

The senior Israeli security official conveyed a sense of necessity, stating, “We gave it a chance but we cannot allow it.

You can’t live under the threat of a sword all the time from both fronts. We will have to take care in the northern arena one day.

We can’t live like that. But first, let’s eliminate this,” referring to the Gaza threat.

Israeli military leaders hold themselves accountable for the failure to protect Israelis from a tragedy like the one inflicted by Hamas on October 7.

The security establishment believes it must regain the trust of the nation.

“There is no other choice. We won’t be able to show ourselves on the streets as the military without providing security for our people,” the security official stated.

“The basic agreement between the Israeli government and the Israeli people was broken. Because there is a commitment.”

Here are some additional points and insights related to the content:

Unique Security Challenges In Israel:

The Israeli security official highlights the distinctive nature of Israel’s security challenges, emphasizing the proximity of Israeli communities to Palestinian areas. This proximity magnifies the security concerns, making it essential for Israel to address threats swiftly and decisively.

“Mowing the Grass” Strategy:

The mention of “mowing the grass” is a reference to a military strategy employed by Israel. It involves periodic military operations to suppress and degrade the capabilities of groups like Hamas. The name reflects the understanding that while the threat may temporarily diminish, it is likely to resurface over time.

Comparison with Hezbollah:

The text draws a parallel between the threat posed by Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Israeli leadership sees both of these as significant security concerns and expresses the need to address the Gaza situation before tackling potential challenges in the northern arena, where Hezbollah operates.

Accountability and National Trust:

The Israeli military leadership acknowledges its responsibility in protecting the nation’s citizens and expresses a desire to regain the trust of the Israeli people. The failure to prevent a tragic event caused by Hamas has highlighted the importance of security and protection for the country’s population.

Commitment to National Security In Israel:

The official emphasizes the government’s commitment to providing security for its citizens. This commitment is a fundamental agreement between the Israeli government and the people, signifying the importance placed on the safety and well-being of the nation.

Overall, this paragraph sheds light on the intricate security challenges faced by Israel and the underlying commitment to ensuring the safety and protection of its citizens in a region marked by complex geopolitical dynamics and longstanding conflicts.

MORE RELATED NEWS:

Where Is Al-Ahli Arab Hospital In Gaza, The Site Of The Recent Attack Amidst The Israel Conflict?

Terror Strikes Sweden: Shocking Truth Behind Recent Attacks And Freedom Of Speech Debate

China’s Belt And Road Initiative (BRI) Adapts Towards Smaller And Greener Projects

News

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding, But Still Accounting 48% Search Revenue

Google

Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.

According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.

Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.

google

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.

The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.

Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.

Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.

To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.

Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.

On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.

In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.

Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.

google

Pixa Bay

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.

TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.

When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.

And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.

Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.

A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.

google

Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.

But today, it feels more like reality.

Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.

Could we remember Google in the same way that we remember Yahoo or Ask Jeeves in decades? These next few years could be significant.

SOURCE | CNN

Continue Reading

News

The Supreme Court Turns Down Biden’s Government Appeal in a Texas Emergency Abortion Matter.

Supreme Court

(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.

The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.

Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.

This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.

In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.

The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.

This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.

The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.

In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.

According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.

Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.

The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.

For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.

Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.

As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.

As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.

The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.

SOURCE: AP

SEE ALSO:

Could Last-Minute Surprises Derail Kamala Harris’ Campaign? “Nostradamus” Explains the US Poll.

Scientists Awarded MicroRNA The Nobel Prize in Medicine.

US Inflation will Comfort a Fed Focused on Labor Markets.

Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli, To repay $6.4 Million

shkreli

Washington — The Supreme Court rejected Martin Shkreli’s appeal on Monday, after he was branded “Pharma Bro” for raising the price of a lifesaving prescription.

Martin appealed a decision to repay $64.6 million in profits he and his former company earned after monopolizing the pharmaceutical market and dramatically raising its price. His lawyers claimed the money went to his company rather than him personally.

The justices did not explain their reasoning, as is customary, and there were no notable dissents.

Prosecutors, conversely, claimed that the firm had promised to pay $40 million in a settlement and that because Martin orchestrated the plan, he should be held accountable for returning profits.

shkreli

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli

Martin was also forced to forfeit the Wu-Tang Clan’s unreleased album “Once Upon a Time in Shaolin,” which has been dubbed the world’s rarest musical album. The multiplatinum hip-hop group auctioned off a single copy of the record in 2015, stipulating that it not be used commercially.

Shkreli was convicted of lying to investors and defrauding them of millions of dollars in two unsuccessful hedge funds he managed. Shkreli was the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals (later Vyera), which hiked the price of Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 per pill after acquiring exclusive rights to the decades-old medicine in 2015. It cures a rare parasite condition that affects pregnant women, cancer patients, and HIV patients.

shkreli

He defended the choice as an example of capitalism in action, claiming that insurance and other programs ensured that those in need of Daraprim would eventually receive it. However, the move prompted criticism, from the medical community to Congress.

shkreli

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli

Attorney Thomas Huff said the Supreme Court’s Monday ruling was upsetting, but the high court could still overturn a lower court judgment that allowed the $64 million penalty order even though Shkreli had not personally received the money.

“If and when the Supreme Court does so, Mr. Shkreli will have a strong argument for modifying the order accordingly,” he told reporters.

Shkreli was freed from prison in 2022 after serving most of his seven-year sentence.

SOURCE | AP

Continue Reading

Trending