Erdogan: Critiques Netanyahu.
Turkish President's Speech to United Nations General Assembly.
Israel is still raining down death and destruction on Gaza with no end in sight. Thousands of Gazans lie dead, maimed, or will suffer from PTSD for the rest of their lives. Lord knows how many bodies lie under the rubble. Israel has achieved some success in neutralizing Hamas. Some hostages have been recovered from Gaza either dead or alive. Gazans wander from place to place never knowing if the IDF will bomb them alleging that where they are is a Hamas stronghold. Israelis have demonstrated since the beginning of the war where Hamas killed one thousand, some odd Israelis. Hoping Israel will negotiate with the remnants of Hamas in Gaza, to end the war, and bring the hostages home. Israel despite its firepower and military might has failed to destroy Hamas. While much of its military and tunnel system lies in ruins, many of its fighters, leaders, and operatives are dead, it still can bring grief to the IDF. In hit-and-run attacks, Israel's equipment is being destroyed be it tanks, bulldozers, etc. The IDF's dead must be at least 1,000 or more taken out by Hamas fighters.
Despite Netanyahu being wanted for corruption in his own country, the world court could be or will enact an arrest warrant for Netanyahu for crimes against humanity, the war goes on. Netanyahu is only concerned about one thing, his survival. It looks like Netanyahu is prepared to drag his country and the rest of the Middle East into hell, as long as he survives.
Now Netanyahu is bombing the hell of out of Lebanon. The UN Secretary- General has stated Lebanon could be reduced to another Gaza. Hezbollah and Israel are now locked into a deadly game of tit-for-tat for attacks. Thousands of Israeli citizens have fled south and Lebanese have fled north. Bombs and missiles fly into Israel and Lebanon as this war intensifies. Netanyahu's stated aim is to bring back his citizens to the north and push back Hezbollah further north in Lebanon. Despite, Israel launching everything it has on Hezbollah, exploding communication devices, bombs, and rockets, killing leaders and commanders, Hezbollah like Hamas, is still fighting unbowed. Leader Hasan Nasrallah, from some hidden bunker, proclaims Hezbollah will stop firing rockets into Israel when Israel stops bombing Gaza. Well, Netanyahu backed by the West despite their crocodile tears (for Gaza) will not stop. So, therefore, this war of annihilation continues ad infinitum.
The Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, himself accused of being a dictator, unleashed a firey speech about Netanyahu. The Turkish leader has enjoyed good relations with Netanyahu in the past. However, since Israel's onslaught in Gaza, relations have soured, to the point where good relations between Israel and Turkey are dead. Erdogan has attacked Israel throughout this war (verbally). Erdogan said Israel is turning Gaza into the world's biggest cemetery for "women and children". Speaking at the UN General Assembly yesterday in New York, Erdogan said, "In Gaza, not only are children dying, but also the United Nations system is dying, the values the West claims to defend are dying, the truth is dying, and the hopes of humanity are dying one by one". Erdogan also stated, "Are Gazan and West Bank not human beings"?
Erdogan then for many became controversial in his speech, which took no prisoners or did not spare anyone's blushes. He urged the international community to stop "Netanyahu and his murderous network. Just as Adolf Hitler was stopped by the Alliance of Humanity 70 years ago, Netanyahu must be stopped (again) by the Alliance of Humanity".
Jordan's King Abdullah II agreed with the Turkish President in his speech. However, King Abdullah said Jordan could not be Palestine despite the fact many Palestinians fleeing Israel have made it their home. As many have said before him, a two-state solution is the only way forward for both Palestinians and Israelis. However, as always, as the bombs and missiles fly, such a reality remains sadly, in the ideal world.
his own suriviv
About the Creator
Nicholas Bishop
I am a freelance writer currently writing for Blasting News and HubPages. I mainly write about politics. But have and will cover all subjects when the need arises.
Keep reading
More stories from Nicholas Bishop and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Trump Admits He Could Lose.
Reality may be dawning in the mind of the former POTUS (President of The United States), he may lose. Trump is normally upbeat and defiant but two brushes with death via thwarted assassination attempts may have made him think. No doubt, Trump still wants to win the presidential race, however, having been within inches of leaving this life, Trump may have had time to reflect. Maybe, winning or losing doesn't matter to him anymore. Maybe, he is realizing there is more to life than being President of the United States. I am speculating here but who knows what goes through people's minds.
By Nicholas Bishopabout a year ago in The Swamp
When Harry Reid Went Nuclear
In November 2013, a quiet but historic shift took place on the floor of the United States Senate. It did not involve explosions, foreign conflict, or dramatic speeches delivered to roaring crowds. Instead, it involved procedure—an often-overlooked but powerful force in American politics. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made a decision that would permanently change how the Senate operates. This moment came to be known as the day Harry Reid “went nuclear.” To understand why this mattered, it helps to first understand how the Senate traditionally worked. The Filibuster and Senate Tradition For decades, the U.S. Senate prided itself on being the chamber of extended debate. Unlike the House of Representatives, the Senate allowed unlimited discussion on most issues. This tradition gave rise to the filibuster, a tactic that allows a minority of senators to delay or block a vote by refusing to end debate. To stop a filibuster, the Senate needs to invoke cloture, which historically required 60 votes. This supermajority rule was meant to encourage compromise and protect minority voices. In theory, it slowed down extreme legislation. In practice, it increasingly became a tool for gridlock. By the early 2010s, the filibuster was no longer rare. It had become routine. A Senate Stuck in Neutral When Barack Obama entered his second term as president, Democrats controlled the Senate, but Republicans used the filibuster to block many of Obama’s nominees. These were not just cabinet-level officials. Judicial nominees, including those for federal appeals courts, were routinely stalled. Harry Reid, a seasoned senator from Nevada, watched as vacancies piled up. Courts were understaffed. Executive agencies struggled to function. Reid argued that this level of obstruction went beyond legitimate opposition and threatened the government’s ability to operate. Republicans countered that the filibuster was a vital check on majority power. To them, Democrats were simply frustrated that they could not push nominees through without resistance. The tension reached a breaking point in November 2013. The Nuclear Option Explained The “nuclear option” is not an official Senate rule. It is a procedural maneuver that allows the Senate to reinterpret its rules by a simple majority vote, bypassing the usual 60-vote requirement. On November 21, 2013, Harry Reid used this option to eliminate the filibuster for most presidential nominations. From that day forward, executive branch nominees and federal judicial nominees—except for Supreme Court justices—could be confirmed with a simple majority of 51 votes. It was a dramatic move. Many senators, including some Democrats, warned that it would weaken the Senate’s unique role. Reid himself had previously opposed the nuclear option. But in that moment, he argued that extraordinary obstruction required extraordinary action. Immediate Reactions and Fallout The reaction was swift and intense. Democrats praised the move as necessary and overdue. They argued that elections should have consequences and that a president deserved to staff his administration and the courts. To them, the Senate had become dysfunctional, and Reid’s decision restored basic governance. Republicans were furious. They accused Reid of breaking the Senate and destroying a tradition that had stood for over a century. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned that Democrats would regret the decision when they were no longer in power. That warning would later prove prophetic. Long-Term Consequences At first, the impact seemed limited. President Obama was able to fill judicial vacancies, including seats on the powerful D.C. Circuit Court. The executive branch regained momentum. But the precedent had been set. In 2017, when Republicans gained control of the Senate and Donald Trump became president, they expanded the nuclear option. This time, it was applied to Supreme Court nominations, allowing Justice Neil Gorsuch to be confirmed with a simple majority. What began as a targeted procedural fix became a fundamental shift in how power is exercised in the Senate. Was It a Mistake or a Necessity? Whether Harry Reid’s decision was right or wrong depends largely on perspective. Supporters argue that the Senate was already broken. They point out that the filibuster was being used more than ever before, not to encourage debate but to block routine governance. From this view, Reid did not break the system—he exposed how fragile it had already become. Critics argue that Reid accelerated the Senate’s decline. By removing the incentive for compromise, they say, the nuclear option turned the Senate into a body that increasingly resembles the House, driven by narrow majorities and partisan swings. Both arguments carry weight, which is why the moment remains so controversial. A Defining Legacy Harry Reid retired from the Senate in 2017 and passed away in 2021. Among his many accomplishments, the nuclear option stands out as one of the most consequential. It reshaped judicial confirmations, altered the balance of power between parties, and changed how future majorities would govern. More importantly, it forced Americans to confront a difficult question: how much tradition should be preserved when it no longer serves its intended purpose?
By Saboor Brohi about 16 hours ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.