DIMSA’s Post

Yesterday, Donald Trump was complaining that he lacks the support of the majority of the Jewish community for the November election. 😳Trump puts the support between 60% and 40% in favor of Harris. I think Trump is right, and there is a bitter and good reason about it .  It has become apparent that with Biden and Harris in power, the Netanyahu & Gallant Team (both indicted persons by ICC for war crimes) has enjoyed a full and unconditional support in their genocidal war against the Palestinian and Zionist unlawful expansion in the West Bank and beyond. So why would the Zionist Regime, and their surrogates here in US (AIPAC  and Others) would change horses in the midstream at such a critical juncture?, and when it is working so good for them? The record shows that between Obama and Biden, the Israeli War Machine had received the highest money and weapons compared with Trump of other GOP governments. To add more, the Trump- Netanyahu meeting at Mara Lago, in Palm Beach, Florida was not with full of praises, rather cold, and Trump in the closing statement, was critical of Netanyahu by warning that his actions could lead to a World War III 😳 ? My take is that under a new Harris presidency , the US Policy towards Israel will be the same O… S… and it has been proven to be subservient of everything Israel wants to do. This is not a comment for Trump’s endorsement ,NO, absolutely not. But I believe that unless Harris changes her position in the next month or so , the moral and politically correct position, for every decent citizen, it is to have an obligation to confront these horrendous crimes being committed by Israel with the complicity of the present Biden - Harris administration, and consequently, choose to take the position of #UNCOMMITTED in the next election. So Josh Paul is mostly correct again 👍🙏

When asked by media and allies I have expressed a belief that a Harris presidency would be "slightly better" than the Biden Presidency has been for Gaza, in part because she is not a hard-cast ideologue on this issue as Biden is, and in part because her team are more moderate and reasonable (and frankly also more thoughtful and self-aware) than Biden's team are. But the devil is in the details. When it comes to those details, it is hard to point to a specific area where we can be sure a Harris presidency would be better. Would they be more likely to condition or suspend arms transfers? They have been explicit that they would not. Would they enforce the U.S. laws already on the books, such as 620I or Leahy? They have not said they would. Would they stand up for the rights of peaceful protestors on campuses across America? They have given no sign of doing so, and indeed, Harris' responses both to the protests at the time of Netanyahu's visit to Washington DC, and to protests at her own campaign events, have been deeply disappointing - and their unwillingness to even give a Palestinian-American a voice at the Democratic Convention was a very worrying sign. I also believe that no individual, not even at the level of the President of the United States, can bring transformative change to U.S. policy on this issue in the next four years given how firmly entrenched the current approach is across American politics - this is something that will take many years to fix, and in the coming weeks I will be unveiling a new effort to address this strategically, holistically, and effectively. In the meantime, I, and others I have spoken to, would like to believe that Harris would be slightly better than where we are. But there is only so long we can wave our hands at generalities and presumptions - we need clear words from the Harris campaign that give a basis for these hopes. Without those, it is becoming increasingly difficult to hold to such hopes, and the polls demonstrate that the Harris campaign should be increasingly concerned about the implications of this gap between hopes and words - let alone actions - for outcomes of the election in key states. The ball is in their, and her, court.

Quote"Those of us who are continuing to raise our voices on Gaza must be conscious of this shifting political dynamic and its implications for our leverage and tactics. On the one hand, our calls, including for an immediate ceasefire and an immediate suspension of lethal arms transfers to the IDF, remain appropriately directed to the only person who has the power to address them today: Joe Biden. On the other, we must engage with the new candidates for President and VP, cognizant that they have less power to change the immediate situation, and not having Biden's "track record" on Israel have an even tighter line to walk with the party establishment, the media, and key donors. In that context, we must be unwavering in our demands, but effective in our tactics. Coalition-building in particular remains vital - demonstrating to the candidates that Gaza is not a concern of the few, but of the many, not a focus for some on the perimeter, but a core concern for millions across the rainbow coalition that is the Democratic party. But however we do it, we need to keep Gaza top of mind for the campaign, and do so in a way that incentivizes their continued substantive commitments to change. NYT article: https://lnkd.in/ekfHDgkc Harris Nat Sec Advisor's Tweet: https://lnkd.in/eYjTQGSG Archived NYT article: https://archive.ph/iWMP8"

Two things happened in Michigan on Wednesday evening. First, in the receiving line for Vice President Harris, leaders of the Uncommitted Movement spoke with her briefly and asked her to consider an arms embargo on Israel, and Harris agreed to continue the conversation. Then, in her rally, protestors raised their voices to elevate the issue of Gaza, and Harris told them "if you want Trump to win then say that, otherwise I am speaking." Harris' response to protester's chants in Michigan was, to put it mildly, unfortunate, and a missed opportunity for her to acknowledge the justice and humanity of their pleas. At the same time, the statement issued by her team thereafter (link below), which included both a reference to upholding international law and a subtle but, to this parser of diplomatic wording, fascinating contextualizing qualifier to the standard line on Israel's right to defend itself, while cloaked in more nuance than any of us would like, was encouraging. As the massacre and starvation of Gaza continues, we should be conscious of the changing political context in the U.S. When Biden was running, Gaza protests were directed at a single person who was both the decision-maker empowered to change the policy, and the candidate whose re-election may have hinged on this one issue. Now, Harris is the candidate, and the Democrats are celebrating a moment of sudden and rare party unity. On the current trajectory, though it is still very early, a Democratic Presidential victory suddenly seems not just a roll of the dice, but a distinct possibility. Those of us who are continuing to raise our voices on Gaza must be conscious of this shifting political dynamic and its implications for our leverage and tactics. On the one hand, our calls, including for an immediate ceasefire and an immediate suspension of lethal arms transfers to the IDF, remain appropriately directed to the only person who has the power to address them today: Joe Biden. On the other, we must engage with the new candidates for President and VP, cognizant that they have less power to change the immediate situation, and not having Biden's "track record" on Israel have an even tighter line to walk with the party establishment, the media, and key donors. In that context, we must be unwavering in our demands, but effective in our tactics. Coalition-building in particular remains vital - demonstrating to the candidates that Gaza is not a concern of the few, but of the many, not a focus for some on the perimeter, but a core concern for millions across the rainbow coalition that is the Democratic party. But however we do it, we need to keep Gaza top of mind for the campaign, and do so in a way that incentivizes their continued substantive commitments to change.   NYT article: https://lnkd.in/ekfHDgkc Harris Nat Sec Advisor's Tweet: https://lnkd.in/eYjTQGSG Archived NYT article: https://archive.ph/iWMP8

I am writing this post today with a heavy heart, deeply troubled by the sentencing of civilians in the military courts in the aftermath of the 9th May events. What sickens me even more is that the political party, which incited and fueled these protests, has now completely disowned and abandoned those who took part. It's beyond disgraceful. Why are these innocent civilians being punished in military courts, while the political masterminds, the very ones who orchestrated and manipulated these protests, are hiding underground, escaping justice? This is an absolute mockery of fairness and accountability. Let’s be clear: the ones being punished are young students, college and university kids, who were led astray by the political schemers behind the scenes. These young people didn’t act on their own; they were misled by the very people now hiding in the shadows, not having to face any consequences for their actions. The military courts’ trial process is a disgrace and an insult to justice. These courts are designed to target the most vulnerable, not to deliver real justice. They serve the interests of those in power, while the actual criminals—the political leaders who incited the violence—escape unscathed. I call on the civil courts to step in and nullify these unjust punishments. It is time to stand up for the innocent civilians who were used as pawns in this political game. Justice must prevail, and these young, misguided individuals deserve to be treated fairly—not punished in a military court designed to silence dissent, not seek truth. This is a battle for justice, and it’s high time we hold the real criminals accountable—those who pushed the vulnerable into conflict, only to abandon them when it was convenient.

Last December, former President Joe Biden signed the fiscal year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act into law, including a provision that requires the U.S. Government Accountability Office to develop a proposal to apply enhanced pleading standards in protests challenging U.S. Department of Defense procurements. The new GAO pleading standards could change the calculus of whether protestors file with GAO or protest before the Court of Federal Claims instead. RJO shareholder Lucas Hanback and associate Timothy Wieroniey authored a Law360 article (subscription required) on how these new standards may change where protests are filed. In their article, “Anticipating How GAO Pleading Standards May Shift,” Hanback and Wieroniey analyze the current pleading standards and discuss GAO’s new mandate. They also explore bid protest strategies that government contractors may use moving forward. Read more about their article and view a pdf copy on our website: https://lnkd.in/gFaGCS3f 

SO, BEFORE YOU VOTE PLEASE WATCH THIS VIDEO IN IT"S ENTIRETY. If you are still undecided and want to know who to vote for, then watch this first. LET"S MAKE THIS GO VIRAL !!!

I was having a conversation with someone over the weekend, and they attended a number of protests. They talked about finding themselves speaking at these protests, and feeling nervous about doing it. I told them that all great speeches are protests. If you want to understand how Donald Trump pulled off one of the greatest political upsets not just in US history, but in world history, this concept of "protest" is a key one to understand. Trump understood, quicker and more deeply than any other candidate (except perhaps Bernie Sanders) that there was an undercurrent of protest rippling in the USA in the lead up to the 2016 election. There were swathes of people who felt ignored and left behind by a changing world. They wanted to rebel against the establishment in hopes of a better outcome for their lives. Trump based all his messaging and political campaigning about speaking to these people. Trump embraced the concept of "any publicity is good publicity" and has built a brand and devoted following that propelled him to the White House, and is ready to try and do it again. Trump knew the rules of the game he was playing. It was not about getting the most votes, it was about getting votes where it mattered. A formula that still plays out as we talk about a handful of swing states deciding the next election. When, against the odds, his strategy pays off, what does he do next? How can he play the anti-establishment card when he is now head of the establishment? That is the task facing him as he stands up to deliver his inauguration speech in 2017. I've gone back and looked at this speech to identify how he transferred the messaging and momentum of his Presidential Campaign into his first moments as President. To find out how Trump created his speaking brand, click the video below. #publicspeaking #leadership #uselection

Protesters in Dearborn, Michigan have been openly calling for the destruction of the USA and Israel. The scene, which one might expect to encounter in the streets of Tehran or Gaza City, has instead unfolded on American soil, raising alarming questions about the spread of radical ideologies within the nation's borders. The demonstrators' inflammatory rhetoric not only targeted Israel but also included calls for the downfall of the Biden administration. This raises concerns about the potential political motives behind the protest and whether these fringe elements represent a constituency that the current administration is attempting to appease. As the United States grapples with an increasingly polarized and volatile political climate, the presence of such extremist views in the heart of an American city underscores the urgent need for a robust and principled response from US leaders. The Biden administration must unequivocally condemn these dangerous and divisive statements, making it clear that calls for the destruction of the nation and its allies have no place in our public discourse. Failure to address this issue head-on risks emboldening those who seek to undermine the very foundations of the democracy and erode the values that have long united Americans of all backgrounds. The preservation of national security and the defense of strategic partnerships abroad must remain a top priority, transcending the short-term considerations of electoral politics.

What questions do I want answered to at this week’s Democratic National Convention? Check out my preview of the DNC in this week’s LEADERBOARD!