Republican Donald Trump appealed to Muslim voters in Michigan on Saturday as Michelle Obama made an impassioned plea on behalf of Kamala Harris at the Democrat’s own rally in the battleground state.

In Michigan, Harris and Trump are battling for voters that include an Arab American and Muslim population concerned about Israel’s bombardment of Gaza, and union workers worried about how electric vehicles could reshape the US auto industry, which is headquartered in Detroit, the state’s largest city.

Election Day is Nov. 5 but early voting was under way in Michigan, as it is many states.

Speaking at a rally outside Detroit, Trump said he had just met with a group of local imams, arguing that he deserved the support of Muslim voters because he would end conflicts and bring peace to the Middle East.

“That’s all they want,” Trump said in the Detroit suburb of Novi, also pledging to auto workers at the rally that he would reverse economic decline in the Detroit area and nationwide.

Trump fully backs Israel but has not said how he would end the conflict there.

Even so, Trump appears to be gaining support from some Muslim Americans upset with President Joe Biden’s and Harris’ support of Israel, and despite Trump banning immigration from some Muslim majority countries in his first term as president.

Imam Belal Alzuhairi of the Islamic Center of Detroit joined Trump on stage, saying, “we ask Muslims to stand with President Trump because he promises peace.”

With some 8.4 million registered voters and 15 electoral college votes of the 270 needed to win, Michigan is one of seven competitive US states that will decide the election. It is part of the “Blue Wall” that is considered Democrats’ best chance of electing Harris, along with Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

OBAMA TAKES THE STAGE

In the southern Michigan city of Kalamazoo, about 130 miles (210 km) away, Harris drew contrasts between her and Trump on issues such as abortion rights, taxes and healthcare.

But first Obama, the popular wife of former President Barack Obama, fired up the crowd by drawing distinctions between the two candidates on personal character and qualifications, saying there was a double standard in how Trump and Harris were being treated.

“I hope you’ll forgive me that I’m a little frustrated that some of us are choosing to ignore Trump’s gross incompetence while asking Kamala to dazzle us at every turn,” the former first lady said, urging any undecided voters to “snap out of whatever fog they’re in.”

Obama also addressed women’s health at length, saying Trump has failed to demonstrate understanding of its complexity and that his vows to rescind the Affordable Care Act passed during her husband’s presidency would affect the “entirety of women’s health, all of it.”

“We as women will become collateral damage to your rage,” she said, later introducing Harris to an animated crowd.

Harris was several minutes into an upbeat address when she was interrupted by a demonstrator who repeatedly yelled, “No more Gaza war.”

After Harris supporters shouted down the interruption, Harris responded, “On the topic of Gaza, we must end that war,” then picked up where she left off, asking voters to “turn the page on the fear and the divisiveness.”

“Over the last eight years, Donald Trump has become more confused, more unstable and more angry, and it is clear he has become increasingly unhinged. But the last time, at least there were people who could control him, but notice they’re not with him this time,” Harris said.

Ahead of the rally, Harris met with women medical providers in Portage, Michigan, where she said the country was in a healthcare crisis following the 2022 ruling by the US Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade, which had guaranteed a women’s right to abortion nationwide.

Harris heard from six women medical providers who described being inundated by patients from other regions due to a lack of reproductive healthcare in their areas since Roe was overturned.

After leaving Michigan, Trump traveled to Pennsylvania, where he tried to reel in young voters with a rally on the campus of Penn State University, at one point bringing the school’s wrestling team on stage with him.

“We have to finish it off with a big victory on Nov. 5,” he said.

POLLS SHOW TIGHT RACE

Harris is leading Trump nationally by a marginal 46% to 43%, a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll showed. In Michigan, Harris leads by even less – 47.6% to 47.1%, according to opinion poll aggregator FiveThirtyEight.

Since the 2020 election, Michigan has instituted early in-person voting for the first time and begun permitting jurisdictions with more than 5,000 people to begin processing and tabulating mail ballots eight days before the Nov. 5 Election Day.

So far, 19.5% of registered voters in Michigan, or nearly 1.42 million people, have voted, Michigan’s State Department said on Friday. Only 10,900 were in-person early votes, while the rest were returned absentee ballots.

The post Michelle Obama Backs Harris in Michigan, Where Trump Courts Muslim Vote first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

JNS.org – It’s often said about antisemitism that Jews are the canary in the coal mine: What starts with them won’t end with them, and sooner or later, the rest of society will suffer the consequences of this thoroughly anti-democratic ideology. I’m not going to delve into that proposition here, save to say that while I don’t entirely agree with it, there are times when its core observation can prove useful.

A case in point concerns the secretary-general of the United Nations, António Guterres. Back in June, I gave voice to the disappointment I know is shared by many other Jews over the evolution of his stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. After initially appearing quite promising and making all the right noises on why antisemitism is a global threat that needs to be dealt with, Guterres transformed for the worse after the Hamas pogrom in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, joining the chorus chiding the Jewish state on the international stage—from Ireland to South Africa, from Spain to Chile, and all points in between. Particularly disgraceful was his decision to place Israel on a blacklist of countries whose militaries abuse children, alongside such paragons of virtue as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Russia, Burma/Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan and Yemen. Other democracies, including the United States, France and the United Kingdom, could easily end up on a list like this given the actions of their militaries in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they don’t because the United Nations understands that the political costs of such an action are minimal only when it comes to Israel.

Now Guterres is burrowing deeper into the authoritarian, conspiracy-addled universe from which antisemitism springs. Last week, the U.N. chief arrived in the Russian city of Kazan for a three-day summit of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) bloc of states, which bills themselves as an alternative to the economic institutions, like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, that have dominated the post-World War II global order.

The summit was hosted by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who delightedly used the occasion to demonstrate that his illegal and brutal invasion of Ukraine hasn’t exactly robbed him of allies. More than 20 world leaders joined him in Kazan, among them Chinese President Xi Jinping, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Other states eager to enter the BRICS fold, including Ethiopia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, also sent senior representatives to sit at Putin’s feet.

By attending the summit in Russia, Guterres was effectively spitting in the faces of both Ukraine and Israel. In doing so, he proved that when you flirt with antisemitism and legitimize its tropes, you open yourself up to embracing all of its associated baggage—fake news, outlandish theories and the recasting of terrorism as a form of “resistance.”

BRICS isn’t an exact copy of the Warsaw Pact—the treaty organization that bound the Soviet Union to its Communist satellite states during the Cold War—but it is certainly making moves in that direction. Among its five founders, only Brazil and India have an interest in keeping relations cordial with Western democracies, but they are no match for Chinese or Russian imperatives in this regard. Meanwhile, South Africa and those states that have knocked on the BRICS door more recently—like Turkey, despite its status as a NATO ally—regard the bloc as much more than an economic association. Critically, BRICS will provide rogue states like Iran and even North Korea with a veneer of legitimacy denied to them in Western circles.

Indeed, none of the subjects that the Russian news agency Tass, quoting a Kremlin statement, reported as being on the agenda at a private meeting between Putin and Guterres concerned trade or economic development.  Their “discussion will be given to pressing issues on the international agenda, including the Middle East crisis and the situation around Ukraine,” the Kremlin said. What Guterres will hear from Putin is the standard Russian line, defaming Ukraine’s democratic government as a collection of “neo-Nazis” and richly complaining, nearly three years into the invasion of Ukraine, that it is Israel’s multi-front defensive war against an axis of Iranian proxies that is causing instability! Meanwhile, Iran continues to supply Russia with missiles and drones, while North Korea has—according to South Korean and Ukrainian intelligence reports—sent thousands of its troops to fight alongside the Russians.

By feting a group of states who represent, in the words of Kyiv Post commentator Orhan Dragas, “a worrying mix of authoritarianism, anti-democratic governance, and war crimes,” Guterres is compromising the basic values of the world body’s founding charter. His presence amounts to an approval of Russia’s actions in Ukraine and the deepening alliance between Moscow and Tehran. The only way to avoid that impression would be for Guterres to state clearly that Russia must withdraw entirely from Ukraine and that Israel, as a sovereign U.N. member state, has an unquestioned right to defend itself against an association of states and client paramilitaries seeking its destruction. He won’t, of course, say anything that comes even close to that.

The elephant in the room here is the US-led alliance of democratic states around the world. Over the last 80 years, there has been any number of reasons for them to ditch the United Nations in favor of a new world organization that doesn’t allow its members to repress their own populations or sew regional havoc in the name of “national sovereignty.” Yet they have not done so, mainly because they fear an outcome in which they are unable to influence or check the behavior of authoritarian states. And with the future of US foreign policy up for grabs ahead of the US presidential election on Nov. 5, Putin correctly calculates that now is the perfect time for him to strut the world stage, presenting a vision of international relations that will strengthen the positions of Russia and its allies while weakening ours.

The practical effects of this weakness are already painfully visible. To take a few examples: Qatar—an Iranian ally that practices a form of apartheid by disenfranchising nearly 90% of its population—has been elected to the U.N. Human Rights Council; UNRWA—the U.N. agency solely dedicated to the descendants of Palestinian refugees—continues to function despite copious evidence of the overlap between members of its staff and Hamas; and the U.N.’s top official is breaking bread with a Russian leader eager to revive the threat posed by his country during the Cold War.

I could go on, but it will suffice to say that the head-in-the-sand approach of Western leaders to our fracturing international institutions is in large part responsible for the situation in which we find ourselves. The only real pushback that Guterres has received so far has come from Israel, which has declared him persona non grata. As welcome as that decision is, it is an isolated one that will have little impact until other countries pluck up the courage to follow suit.

The post Guterres Embraces the Authoritarians first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

JNS.org – Golda Meir is reputed to have said of Israel’s enemies, “They say we must be dead. And we say we want to be alive. Between life and death, I don’t know of a compromise.”

As is often said, Israelis live in the Middle East, not the Middle West. No matter what Israel’s enemies say or do, this reality does not penetrate the minds of people who live in different neighborhoods. Instead, politicians speak dreamily of ceasefire agreements, a Palestinian state and normalization with Saudi Arabia.

The root of the conflict is not the so-called “occupation.” When Jordan oversaw the West Bank for 19 years and Egypt controlled Gaza, no one demanded a new Palestinian state. The clamor against “occupation” surfaced only after Israel took control of these territories in self-defense. On Oct. 7, Hamas attacked from Gaza, an area Israel vacated 18 years ago. Israel doesn’t occupy Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen or Iran, and yet it is being attacked by all those countries.

The issue has never been Palestinian self-determination. Arab states invaded Israel in 1948 to carve it up among themselves, not create a Palestinian state. The Palestinians rejected offers of statehood in 1937, 1939, 1947, 1979 (autonomy that would have led to statehood), literally blew up the 1993 Oslo Accords with terrorism and turned down independence provided by the Clinton, Olmert and Trump Mideast peace plans.

What fuels this ongoing conflict is not a fight for Palestinian self-determination but the refusal of Islamist forces to accept a Jewish state in their midst. Most policymakers and pundits can’t process this idea, and students don’t want to believe in religious wars.

At root, religion has always been the basis of the intolerance of Jews in the Middle East. They were, at best, treated as second-class citizens (dhimmis) in Muslim countries before being expelled or forced to flee. In Palestine, the Mufti of Jerusalem incited riots against the Jews two decades before the creation of Israel, demonstrating that anti-Jewish animosity is a cornerstone of the conflict.

Peace cannot be achieved through land or ceasefire agreements since Muslim extremists do not believe that Jews can live on any part of Islamic land. The two-state crowd ignores the Palestinians when they say a Palestinian state would have to be Judenrein, the only place in the world where Jews would not be permitted to live.

Israel’s enemies make their intentions plain, but the world looks the other way. Western leaders argue that Hamas is not just an organization but an “idea,” suggesting that Israel cannot defeat it militarily. If that is true, then how can peace ever be made with an “idea” that calls for the annihilation of Jews?

For those not convinced that Oct. 7 was only one part of the Hamas agenda, I refer you to the group’s charter, which states plainly: “Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. … The Islamic Resistance Movement is but one squadron that should be supported … until the enemy is vanquished and Allah’s victory is realized. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine … [emphasis added].

Because Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wisely ignored US President Joe Biden’s pressure to stay out of Rafah, where Israel knew Yahya Sinwar was hiding, the Israel Defense Forces eliminated one head of the Hamas Hydra. Still, it will regrow and ensure that even after its military capability is demolished, terrorism will continue. Hence the idea that Israel should turn over Gaza to West Bank Palestinians who insist that Hamas be part of the government is a nonstarter.

Israel has cut off several of the Hezbollah Hydra’s heads, but it will grow another and another. Hezbollah will remain a danger until the Iranian regime is overthrown and Lebanon is returned to the Lebanese without the domination of Hezbollah. And here’s a reminder of the Hezbollah “idea” that will live on as expressed by Hassan Nasrallah: “If we searched the entire world for a person, more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli.” To reinforce the point that the war is not about land, occupation or Palestinian suffering, Nasrallah expressed hope that Diaspora Jews would all make aliyah. “If they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.”

War is hell, but it is also sometimes necessary. What is the alternative when the Iranian regime has surrounded Israel with an “axis of resistance,” attacks it with ballistic missiles and is developing nuclear weapons to incinerate it? Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said, “The Zionist regime is a deadly, cancerous growth” that “will undoubtedly be uprooted and destroyed.” Like the antisemites on American campuses, he says he has nothing against Jews, just Zionists, who he says “have always been a plague, even before establishing the fraudulent Zionist regime.” According to Khamenei, “elimination of the State of Israel does not mean the elimination of the Jewish people,” even though 75% of the population are Jews.

We’re told peace is possible with the secular “moderates” in the West Bank like Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas, who, along with other P.A. officials, praised the Hamas massacre, boasted that some of their fighters participated in the slaughter and eulogized Sinwar as “a great national leader.”

PLO chief Yasser Arafat once declared: “We know only one word: jihad, jihad, jihad. … And we are now entering the phase of the great jihad prior to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state whose capital is Jerusalem.” The former speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, Ahmad Bahar, said, “Make us victorious over the infidel people. … Allah, take hold of the Jews and their allies, Allah, take hold of the Americans and their allies … Allah, count them and kill them to the last one and don’t leave even one.”

Fatah, led by Holocaust denier Abbas, has a military wing that posts remarks such as, “To all our sons and brothers in the Palestinian Security Forces throughout the West Bank—today is your day. Break into the settlements, strike the sons of apes of pigs, kill everyone who is a settler, slaughter everyone who is Israeli, by Allah, they are the most cowardly among men. Today is a tiding of days of victory, Allah willing—for this is jihad, jihad, victory or martyrdom.”

Look at any P.A. map or the logos of the terrorist organizations to see that the “solution” is not two states but one called Palestine replacing Israel. To advance its cause, the P.A. incentivizes the murder of Jews through its “pay-for-slay” policy of paying the families of suicide bombers and terrorists in Israeli prisons.

The former head of the Shin Bet astonishingly wrote: “Winning on the battlefield does not bring us closer to winning the war—unless we defeat Hamas’s ideology by creating a better political horizon.”

Others, including Biden, have expressed similar nonsense. The Palestinians were repeatedly offered and rejected a horizon for independence precisely because they share the Islamist ideology. Oslo was the best proof as the Palestinians were given a five-year horizon for statehood and killed it by incessant terror. Arafat’s reaction to the prospect offered by Clinton was to start the Second Intifada, which lasted from 2000 to 2005.

Make no mistake, if given the opportunity, the Palestinians and the jihadists in Iran and Hezbollah would kill every Jew if given the chance.

Despite the best efforts of the Biden administration, the Europeans and the United Nations, to spare everyone but the Jews, Israelis stubbornly insist on living and not compromising with those who unapologetically seek its destruction.

As Israelis remind the world, their fight is not only for survival—it is a fight for the West, for the defense of civilization against a barbaric ideology that seeks nothing less than the destruction of the Jewish people.

Americans are in the same fight but dislike talking about it. We are fighting ISIS, Al-Qaeda and other Islamist terrorists, even at the cost of civilian lives. Israelis are told they are creating more terrorists, but Americans have never hesitated to kill terrorists out of such concern. And while some are telling Israel to “take the win” after eliminating Sinwar, no one proposed that the United States stop the war on terror after Osama bin Laden was dispatched.

There is hope, however distant it may seem.

I am reminded of the British adviser who told a Zionist official the Jews should never have allowed the United Nations to decide their fate in 1947 because the only way they’d get a state was if the United States and the Soviet Union agreed. That would never happen, he said.

He was wrong.

For the next 30 years, Middle East experts said the Arabs will never make peace. Then, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat broke the psychological barrier by going to Jerusalem in 1977 and signing a treaty with Israel two years later. It took 15 more years before King Hussein of Jordan showed the same courage. Another 25 years passed before the Abraham Accords were signed and another four Muslim Arab states normalized relations with Israel.

Perhaps, one day, a new generation of Palestinians will see that their future lies in coexistence, not jihad. But that day will only come after Israel’s enemies and their hateful ideologies are defeated, just as Nazism and communism were.

The post There Is No Compromise in a Religious War first appeared on Algemeiner.com.