Share This Episode
Sekulow Radio Show Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow Logo

Breaking: Biden State Department Working Toward Two State Solution Amid Gaza Conflict

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
February 1, 2024 1:12 pm

Breaking: Biden State Department Working Toward Two State Solution Amid Gaza Conflict

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1017 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.


February 1, 2024 1:12 pm

Secretary of State Antony Blinken requested that the State Department consider options for the U.S. to recognize “Palestine” as a state. Will the Biden Administration push for a two-state solution for Israel and “Palestine”? The Sekulow team discusses why "Palestine" is a myth, the latest radical move by “Squad” Reps. Rashida Tlaib (MI-12) and Cori Bush (MO-1), the most recent South Carolina primary polls for President Trump and Nikki Haley – and much more.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

Breaking news today on Sekulow as the Biden State Department is working to recognize, get this, a Palestinian state. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you.

Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Yeah, you heard that right. I mean, it's almost crazy to say that this is actually going on right now in our State Department while Israel announced yesterday that the war against Hamas would take all of 2024. That they were planning for this to at least take a full additional year. And the war started, of course, before we even entered 2024. So, again, it's not going to be a months-long war, but at least another year of battle.

We had three U.S. troops killed by an Iranian proxy force that's similar to an Iranian proxy force that committed the attacks on Israel on October 7th, Hamas. And yet the United States, with Secretary Blinken, has a working group put together. As well as the U.K. and David Cameron, who is right now the Foreign Secretary, former Prime Minister, are working on the moment the war is over, that Israel declares the war over against Hamas, that they will recognize a Palestinian state. Now, will that be done at the United Nations?

Will that be done officially through a process? Is that going to be done unilaterally by, again, two of the more important countries in the world because they sit on the permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council? I mean, the fact that we're even saying this, I mean, imagine this is what the Biden administration is working on right now after three U.S. troops get killed by Iranian-backed groups. We're firing back at the Houthis. We saw those attacks. They fired back on us. Thankfully, we were able to shoot down both their drones and one of their ballistic missiles that they fired at a U.S. ship in the Red Sea.

But as we talked about, when you're firing that many missiles and sending that many one-way suicide drones towards our ships, accidents occur, and now we've had that occur that have caused deaths and, of course, serious injuries as well. That we've got teams working on how we're going to recognize a Palestinian state. Is that Palestinian state going to be the remnants of Hamas leadership that live in Doha and then the West Bank autocrat who's, is he 90 years old, Mahmoud Abbas, who just takes and takes? This is also why we find out that the main aid organization for the Palestinians, the UNRWA, the United Nations, and its hundreds of millions of dollars that it receives from the United States, has employees that were top-level Hamas officials.

So at least one that was a top leader, and seven who were actually active on October 7th went into Israel and committed those atrocities. And that's just what they found out so far amongst that organization. Now, this is also a very critical time for us at the ACLJ. We'll take your calls on this because this is not a joke. This is really happening, and it's a planned move, coordinated move, it looks like, between the U.S. and the U.K. to do this.

Whenever this war comes to an end, that they will recognize some kind of Palestinian state, which can cause a whole host of issues, of course, down the road, but especially if the United States is behind that. But we've got a major case right now that you know about, of course, out of Colorado where we represent the Colorado Republican Party, and you know it's about President Trump and the 14th Amendment at the U.S. Supreme Court. We're one week away from the oral argument, but we're four days away from our reply brief being due. We filed our initial brief. We now are filing our reply brief to the organization that wants to take President Trump off the ballot because of the 14th Amendment. And that reply brief, folks, we've got our team is working on it around the clock, as you can imagine. This has been a very short timeframe to get all of this done. And we will be filing that.

Of course, you'll be able to see it when it's filed at ACLJ.org. But we have started a matching moment, launched a matching moment. So in these next few days, until we file that reply brief, the final brief before oral argument at the Supreme Court on the 14th Amendment and President Trump on the ballot, this matching moment starts now where you can double the impact of your donation if you donate at ACLJ.org, whatever amount that is, ACLJ.org.

We'll be right back. You know, at a time that Israel is under literally more attack than it's seen since the Holocaust, more Jews killed one day on October 7th than in any of the other wars, you know, 1948, the War for Independence, 1967, Six Day War, or the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the war with Hezbollah in the north, Operation Cast Lead. None of those had the amount of Jews killed in a single day as October 7th when Hamas launched that attack into Israel with their support from Iran. We are now learning that two countries, our own, the United States and the UK, who have been pretty strong at the UN, especially at the UN, in making sure that these Palestinian state issues, whether they're going to become a member, all those issues, have usually at least stood in the way of the statehood question because of, well, there's so many issues that you would have to try and figure out.

It's two different territories that are not connected. One is led by a, you saw, it's a terrorist group that is as horrendous as ISIS. The other is led by former, or if you want to say quasi-terrorist now group who have become more like autocrats, billionaires, who are aging out and it's becoming more radical in the West Bank too. So I don't even know who the leadership would be of this potential Palestinian state, but the US State Department is reportedly working on this along with the UK, that when this war comes to an end, they will recognize a Palestinian state. And they're saying it's because, and this is what David Cameron, the Foreign Minister of the UK says, they want to consider recognition of a Palestinian state as part of a plan for the day after the war in Gaza as a way to give the Palestinians a political horizon. They say they're looking at the issue of recognizing the Palestinian state, including at the United Nations, to help make the process irreversible.

I want to go to CC Howe because CC, I mean, I just named in just a matter of moments, some of the top issues that doesn't even get into some of the more difficult issues, but just top issues of problems with recognizing a Palestinian state. For instance, the Palestinians, if you wanted to classify them as themselves, don't agree on their own political leadership. One group has elected Hamas and has allowed them to remain in power in the Gaza Strip and is now in a long-term war with Israel.

Another group has allowed autocrats to just whittle away money, billions of dollars a year, enrich themselves while not doing much for their people and continuing to support Pay to Slay, which is, again, sending out individuals, encouraging them to carry out a terrorist attack so that their families get a financial reward. Yeah, it would be absolutely horrible for the United States or the UK to recognize a so-called Palestinian state, a state of Palestine, and we regularly send letters to the UN Security Council, which actually has the authority to recognize a state at the United Nations. And like you said, typically the US and the UK, which are permanent members, have the power to veto any such, you know, attempt to become a state. So we literally every month send, there's a new President at the head of the UN Security Council, we send a letter, we point out the problems that first, you know, President Abbas, who is now like West Bank, not Hamas in the Gaza Strip, but he refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. And then Palestine does not meet, we always point out that they do not meet the customary international law requirements for statehood. And we go on in our letter and point out the atrocities that happened on October 7, specifically saying, additionally, in light of the barbaric Hamas attacks on October 7, on innocent men, women, and children, the PA clearly cannot control a large portion of the so-called state of Palestine, including Hamas terrorists, whose goal remains the total elimination of the state of Israel. We go on and we just point out line by line what the problems are by recognizing a state of Palestine. It has to be negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians. Yeah, I mean, if they don't agree, again, you're just setting up for more conflict, but also you're setting up the Palestinian and the people in these territories for failure as well. Because, again, they're not contiguous, so you've got two separate territories, different political leadership, both militant but at different levels. Hamas over the past, say, 10 to 12 years has gotten much closer to Iran, even though they were more of a Sunni-backed kind of terror group, they've gotten much closer to Iran and Hezbollah to the north.

The Palestinian Authority has kind of played this role of working with, again, tried to not look as much, they put suits and ties on, to not look as much like terrorists. But if you visited inside the West Bank, you would see that of all these billions of dollars that go there, where are they going? Because it should look like Dubai, but it doesn't. And there's not corporations doing business there like they do in other parts of the Arab world.

Why? Because the corruption is that bad. And the individuals who have a play in that would rather enrich themselves. I mean, I can't even point to a generation of new leaders. I mean, that would be Hamas.

That would be the younger group, would be the more radical group. And the fact that there haven't been elections in either of these territories, so the idea of who is in charge, they've had their own civil wars on these issues. You could actually be setting them up to go to war against themselves, which, again, is just part of the reasons why it's just, to me, it's like, what a slap in the face to Israel, though. Yes, and at a time when it's like, Israel's having to defend its right to exist, and there's a huge march in D.C. today, that this is giving encouragement to those marchers and to these individuals, these college campuses, who believe that what happened on October 7th was somehow justified.

Absolutely. This is the absolute worst time for the United States or the U.K. to make such an announcement. And we have historically never acknowledged a so-called state of Palestine, and there are specific legal reasons for that. And you've been so articulate to point a lot of those out, that there isn't a government, there aren't specific borders, that they don't have the capacity to conduct international relations.

And the fact that they are literally terrorists, that is who is in control of these regions. So we will also be sending off letters, right now we of course do it every month to the U.N. Security Council President, but we will be sending off a letter to Cameron and Blinken outlining the legal reasons that a so-called state of Palestine cannot be recognized. It's bizarre, so the way that Blinken has put this forward is that he's got the State Department conducting a review of policy options on possible U.S. and international recognition of a Palestinian state, so two parts. So U.S., unilateral recognition, and then of course that international, which would likely be through the U.N. That's exactly what David Cameron is saying, the U.K. foreign minister. And then he said this, the latest statement where he says we're looking at doing this right after the war comes to an end, that was again in a committee meeting that wasn't filmed, but reporters were in the room. This was what he said a couple weeks ago, it was about two weeks ago, about the issue.

So he started this a couple weeks ago, at least talking about it in the U.K., take a listen. Fundamentally, there are four things that have got to happen. Once this conflict is over, we've got to see a Palestinian-led government in Gaza and the West Bank. We need a concrete plan of support for that government and a plan to help reform and support the Palestinian Authority. We've got to see a massive reconstruction plan for Gaza after this conflict is over. And crucially, we've got to see a political horizon towards a two-state solution. I mean, typically those would be things that you don't just do the day a war comes to an end. You might like to start working on those issues when a war comes to an end.

I mean, those would be fine things to work on after Hamas is eliminated from the Gaza Strip, but that's not things you would do until you knew it was over. And the other thing is, you know, the end is, he's saying, a two-state solution. Well, the United States doesn't get to just unilaterally declare that. A two-state solution, by its definition, is that Israel and the Palestinian areas need to negotiate. That's how you get a solution, not by the U.S. declaring it, not by the U.K. declaring it. I mean, just breaking down, the New York Times just sent out a breaking news push about the Biden administration imposing sanction on Israeli settlers over the West Bank violence.

And of course, again, defining what is that violence. And this comes at a time when a vote on the House of Representatives went forward to make sure that members of the PLO, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, would be banned from immigration to the United States. And of course, it had widespread support, which is great in the House of Representatives, 422 yes votes. There were three, though, that did not vote in support. Two, Cori Bush and Rashida Tlaib voted against the bill.

And one, Congresswoman Ramirez from Illinois voted present. And Tlaib said it was just another Republican bill used to incite hatred, but of course, the other Democrats voted to support this. And again, that is not even getting to the issue of Hamas, but just PLO members and officers that they would be banned and no longer receive immigration benefits. The bill titled No Immigration Benefits for Hamas Terrorist Act, and it moves on to the PLO as well. And hopefully that moves to the U.S. Senate. But at this time right now, the Biden administration is sanctioning Israelis and planning on how they can with the U.K. recognize a Palestinian state. I mean, it's like they're living in a la-la land, but it's a dangerous la-la land because our own troops are getting killed in that land. And it's very confusing when you put these kind of, we support Israel, so our troops are getting fired upon for it.

Yet at the same time, we want to recognize a Palestinian state right after a war comes to an end. So we want your calls, your thoughts, 1-800-684-3110. Back with more on Sekulow.

Welcome back to Sekulow. So we've talked about those issues on Israel, but I do want to redirect you to, again, we are just a week away from the oral arguments of the case that will determine not just who you get to vote for in this primary or for President, but in the future as well. Because this section of 14 of the Constitution is, of course, at play, and the 14th Amendment, Section 3, we've talked about it a lot. You know about the case in Colorado.

You know that we represent the Colorado Republican Party. You know that that case has moved up and down through the Colorado court system, has now been taken by the U.S. Supreme Court. We are a party in that case, representing the state party, and we've done this across the country as well with victories and losses, knowing that ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court would settle this matter.

And we are just four days away. We filed our initial briefs in the case earlier. We are four days away from the deadline to file our reply brief. So we will be filing the reply brief to the organization and who represents the individuals that want President Trump removed from the ballot based off the 14th Amendment, which they will go to some of what's in their initial brief, make some pretty bold statements that aren't backed up much by yet, certainly not by the U.S. Supreme Court. And again, that this is, of course, about President Trump in this election, but it would give unbelievable power to secretaries of states to interpret a provision of the Constitution like this to decide who you get to vote for. Again, without an ability really to correct.

I mean, Congress would have to go back and correct. And so, again, where we feel confident, this is still a real battle because the court didn't just say reverse this. Their full briefing schedule and oral arguments that you'll be able to hear on February 8th. But for our team, we have this four-day deadline to file our reply brief. So we get the opportunity to reply to their brief, and then you'll get to see that to it, and we'll have that posted at ACLJ.org.

So that's due next week, a few days before the oral arguments in Washington, D.C., before the court. I want to go to Harry Hutchison because, Harry, in this case, I think that people, again, sometimes it's a little bit tough for them to take it seriously when they see President Trump's win in Iowa, a big win in New Hampshire. Just saw a poll out of South Carolina where former Governor Nikki Haley was the governor of South Carolina. It's a newer poll, and he's up at 52% against Nikki Haley in her home state. Then you get to Super Tuesday, and yet we're still battling an issue that the Supreme Court, which I think will turn around quickly, of whether or not he will even be on the ballot.

There's more than just Colorado. It's probably 15 or 16 states that have at least been interested in making similar moves, even Hawaii recently starting the process to try and take President Trump off the ballot. So even while the Supreme Court's waiting on this issue, states are trying to say, well, just in case, we want to be ready to be able to take him off the ballot, too.

Absolutely. So basically we have a move led by globalist elites who claim to wish to protect democracy. What are they trying to do? They're trying to stifle democracy by preventing the American people from voting for the candidate of their choice. And so if you look precisely at the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution basically sets the bar with respect to whether or not Donald Trump can indeed be removed or disqualified from running for President. It is clear beyond question, number one, that he was never a covered officer within the meaning of Section 3. Notwithstanding that, of course, if you look at the brief filed by CREW, they claim that Section 3 disqualifies Donald Trump from public office.

Full stop. That is simply a bold face, a fabrication, which is not grounded in a precise understanding of the United States Constitution. Number one, Donald Trump was never a covered officer within the meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

That's number one. Number two, he never engaged in an insurrection within the meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. So you take all of this together and I think the answer should indeed be clear, but we should not leave anything to chance. And that is why the ACLJ is filing its reply this week, and it's due at the Supreme Court next Monday, and then we will have oral arguments next week. We were the first group to file on this, and of course the Trump campaign eventually filing on their behalf, but we realized how this impacted you.

And when I say you, I'm talking to all of our supporters out there, I'm talking to our ACLJ champions, I'm talking to our listeners, because you're all voters and how it impacts you. Yes, in this election, because they are going for Donald Trump, but in future elections as well. What, are they going to look at the leading GOP candidate and somehow try to disqualify the most popular Republican each time?

Are Republicans going to start trying to disqualify the most popular Democrat? That's not what was ever, of course, intended by the Constitution here. These issues of insurrection have not been adjudicated, and when it was tried to be brought against Donald Trump, he was, again, acquitted by the U.S. Senate. And of course that was a second impeachment when he was no longer President, and we had real questions about whether that was an impeachment at all.

The Chief Justice didn't show up of the Supreme Court, so he didn't think so, because he was no longer in office. So you've got all these issues, but they are serious, and so while we're representing the Colorado Republican Party and the Republican committee, we also were active in a dozen states as well, and most of those winning pretty early. And then, of course, this all coming to a head in Colorado. So we had the reply brief, Harry, in four days.

Our team's been working on it, you know, very quickly to reply. Get that into the Supreme Court, both electronically and the hard copies to printers, which you still do. And then oral arguments later, we're just one week away from oral arguments. And I think probably from that moment, probably a month or less away from knowing where the Supreme Court comes down on this.

I think that's correct, and I hope the Supreme Court acts expeditiously, because I think what we now are dealing with is an unsettled environment, and it's unsettled by individuals who claim that they're interested in protecting democracy by preventing voters from selecting the candidate of their choice. This makes no sense, and I think the American people understand what's going on. Folks, you understand at the ACLJ, I think you've realized over this period of time, just these couple of months, how busy we've been at the ACLJ on the issues involving Israel. I mean, obviously, you're not predicting on October 7th an attack, the hostages that we're taking and still representing those families. A new blog's up about our team in Europe.

They were just in Spain with leaders there with hostage families. So that is still work that we are ongoing and doing at the ACLJ, and you can see it at ACLJ.org. But also in this case, we're working on these cases in state courts across the country and federal courts as well, then leading to the U.S. Supreme Court. You file that initial brief, four days to go for our reply brief, so we've had to really put our entire team on it. And we're able to do that because we have resources at the ACLJ to dedicate so that we protect your right, literally, to vote for the candidate of your choice in this primary and in future primaries.

So this issue, which didn't need to even come about, but it did, so it is settled. Because of that, we have launched a matching moment from now until the reply brief needs to be filed on Monday, which means anything you donate to ACLJ at ACLJ.org, any donation you make will be doubled. So we've got a group of donors that said, we understand the time commitment, we understand the people, team, legal commitment to this issue. You've had to make it to ACLJ, so we want to make sure you have the resources, again, to be ready to go for this issue, for the next issue that comes about. So again, you double the impact of this matching moment at ACLJ.org. Whatever you donate today until that reply brief is filed on Monday is doubled.

That's ACLJ.org, you'll see the matching moment. We'll be right back, second half hour of Sekulow. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Hey folks, welcome to Sekulow in the second half hour. We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. A couple more issues we're going to talk about. Of course, with Jeff Ballabaugh and the Palestinian issue and the recognition issue that this is really happening in the United States. Of course, our reply brief, and again, we are one week away.

You'll be able to hear those oral arguments that the U.S. Supreme Court on the, again, 14th Amendment, Section 3, attempt to bar President Trump from primary ballots, thus from becoming a candidate for President of the United States. Across the country we've seen these moves, but this case originated, of course, out of the Colorado case, where we are a party to the case because we represent the Colorado Republican Committee. So we've filed full briefing here, and we are just four days away until we need to file our reply brief. So we've launched that matching moment today at ACLJ.org. Our group of donors understand the time commitment, the people commitment as well, to make sure we can get this filed.

And that, again, is at ACLJ.org. I want to go to the phones, 1-800-684-3110, because this issue with Israel just popping up, too, that the U.S. and U.K. are looking at potentially recognizing a Palestinian state. Yes, you're hearing me say that right. When the war is over, and that that will be some kind of path for the Palestinians. Let's go to Wilson, Ohio, on Line 1. Thanks for holding on, Wilson. You're on the air.

Hi. What role did the United Nations play in the formation of the state of Israel? It seems to me that the United States and the United Kingdom must have been sitting on the Security Council in 1947 when somebody somehow said, there's now a new state.

Look, it's called Israel. There was negotiations going on, I mean, since the 1920s, the Balfour Declaration. Yes, I mean, of course, it eventually involves the U.N. We worked with one of the newest countries in the world, South Sudan, when they were ultimately recognized as an independent state. But, again, I think you maybe need to go to aclj.org slash DefendIsrael, where we've put together a video that explains how Israel became a state, but that when it established and received its recognition, which, by the way, we're not saying these countries can't recognize states or that the U.N. can't recognize states. Like I just said, Wilson, they legitimately do so when they recognized South Sudan, and they're constantly looking at areas where it's legitimate. But the Palestinians have been trying to do this for years, and the issue has been that they aren't contiguous, they don't have one, there's two different territories, they have different political leadership.

Again, the economic situation is not there, the terrorism issues, and, of course, the back and forth, the amount of aid that has disappeared, and the fact they are starting wars. Instead of trying to get to peace, they start wars and invade, so I don't look at it as, well, because the U.S., the U.K., where ultimately they recognized Israel at some point that you have to recognize a Palestinian state the day after a war is done. I mean, if you really wanted to get this done legitimately, you've got to work with Israel and the Palestinians, they first have to agree on this, right? Or else, you could see a moment, like Israel had to deal with, when the moment it was declared as a state independent in 1948, it was invaded.

So, don't forget that. The moment Israel was declared independence, the 1948 war began, and the war was won, but that wasn't the last war, that was just the first war. Then 1967, then 1973, then you saw the 90s, the Intifada, the rise of Arafat and PLO, and the wars with Hezbollah and Lebanon in the north, which, by the way, Israel is preparing for yet again, and Hezbollah, of course, even a much more heavily trained, all tying back to, of course, Iran. So, I mean, who does this benefit? I mean, it's just absurd to think that you could do this a day after a war that you don't get to decide when it's over, it is over. But the U.S., consequences of elections and why that case of the Supreme Court next week is so important, so you get to decide who you want to go up against, Joe Biden and this administration in the next election. We'll be right back.

Your call is to 1-800-684-3110. We are just a week away, as the primaries continue, from the oral argument of the U.S. Supreme Court, but four days away from our reply brief being due, the ACLJ represents the Colorado Republican Committee and is a party in that case, so we file our initial brief, that's up at ACLJ.org. We'll have four days until our reply brief is due, so we've launched a matching moment at ACLJ.org, so whatever donation you can make at ACLJ.org will be doubled, so it's a great time to support our work and our donors that became part of that matching moment.

We've also understood, again, the need and all the resources we put behind in this case for this election and future elections, for this generation of voters and future generations of voters, so that they can choose the candidates of their choice, and you don't have, again, one political party who doesn't like the candidate in the other political party and maybe the one who's most effective or most popular, so they can then disqualify them in enough places where they can't be the nominee. I mean, you understand the problematic issues with the partisan actions behind this, but I also want to go and talk a little bit more about this almost, I guess none of it's shocking anymore, but stunning news that we wake up to and see posted late at night for the morning news, and go to Jeff Balbon, who oversees ACLJ Jerusalem. Jeff, two things today, but the first is this move kind of following the UK and what David Cameron's been saying, we now have reports out of the State Department that Blinken has asked for a team to start putting together a plan for both a US, a recognition of a Palestinian state, so again, unilateral recognition, but also multilateral by an international institution, which of course would be the United Nations. And though there's no promises there, the timing David Cameron said that they're looking at is right after the war that's currently ongoing ends, whenever that is, because they want to give some hope to Palestinians. So they're going to give them a state with no leadership, with no continuous borders, and with no, I guess, plans for the future, and I guess, are Hamas leaders going to be the head of the state or autocrats from the PLO? Thanks, Jordan.

Well, it almost does not make a difference. Both the PLO and Hamas are dedicatedly genocidal terror organizations. They have different strategies, different approaches, different, you know, the billionaires, literally the billionaires who lead them have their own interests, and they fight against each other. And the people who suffer are the innocent Jews and Arabs, because of this international warfare, but there is no positive solution through the notion of creating yet another Arab terror state. And this one, literally in the heartland of the Jewish territory, let's remember, because you had a previous caller asked about the creation of the state of Israel. Well, the creation of the state of Jordan happened at the same time, and the state of Jordan sits right now on what was recognized universally as 80% of the Jewish national home, which was given to the Arabs for a state. Well, they threw all the Jews out, as opposed to Israel, which was never accepted, but managed to survive the war launched on it by Jordan and others.

And it kept its Arabs as citizens, and they're very much exactly the same as the Jewish citizens. And so the idea of creating yet another Arab terror state is anathema. It will destroy any hope for stability in the Middle East.

We've seen this. By the way, we've seen that's what's so fascinating is that the Biden administration is talking about this right after two things. It's in the middle of one thing, which is the worst atrocity committed on Jews since the Holocaust by the very same people they want to now award a state. And second, after we see the other model, which cuts out this nonsense garbage notion of a Palestinian state, which has done nothing but kill Jews and the Arabs, and all of a sudden you see peace and stability breaking out all over the Middle East. You see, you saw the Abraham Accords. That was a result of sidelining the nonsense issue of a Palestinian state. So here, I have no idea if it's constitutional, Jordan, but the notion of America unilaterally overriding a sovereign state of Israel and declaring that it's going to consider recognizing a terror organization as a state.

It's outrageous. It will destroy stability in the Middle East. It will destroy the Jewish state and will absolutely create, I believe, World War Three. It will completely destabilize the region.

It puts Iran in control, and all bets are off at that point. Yeah, I mean, Tim in California's got a good question on line two. Tim, welcome to Sekulow. You're on the air.

Thank you for taking my call. How do we stop the Biden administration from mandating that Palestinian state is legit? Doesn't the Biden administration realize that the Palestinian Authority, they want to drive Israel into the sea?

Maybe they don't care. Well, at the beginning of every month, we send, and we talked about this earlier in the show, Jeff, you know, to the UN Security Council gets a new President, and it's a rotating member, and it's Ghana this month. And so we send a letter, and we do update it. This one's updated with what has occurred since October 7th about why you should not consider as the Security Council President a move for Palestinian statehood, which will likely be some move tried while you are sitting in that presidency for your term, which is one month. So we do that every single month through the European Center for Law and Justice, which is a recognized NGO by the United Nations.

But, Jeff, I think that you have to look at U.S. political leadership, international political leadership. But you've got to have a United States who will, again, get back to the Security Council with a spine that can veto moves like this, that doesn't just sit back and maybe, again, not take positions. Or even like we're hearing now, it's not that Blinken has said they're going to 100 percent do it, but they're going to see how they can do it. I think we now have to start saying, OK, we've got to put together not just at the UN, but how the U.S. is not in a position. We've got to activate Congress as well.

Yes, 100 percent. Look, Jordan, and I'm here now back in the States partially to deal with these issues, because in Israel, where I spend most of my time now, on behalf of the ACLJ, it is abundantly clear that it was clear even before October 7th that the notion of creating a, quote, Palestinian, unquote, state in Judea and Samaria is anathema to the survival of Israel. This is not, you know, they try to portray this politically as though this is a, quote, Bibi or an Netanyahu position or a Likud position or a right wing position. This is the most moderate position that there cannot be a Palestinian state.

This is accepted completely across the political spectrum. You'd have to go extreme, extreme, extreme left to find anyone who believes it. By the way, even the Arab Israeli citizens don't believe that the idea of a Palestinian state is acceptable at this point. This is not just a Jewish versus Arab thing. This is a literal survival for the state of Israel. And for all of its citizens, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Arabs, for all of its citizens, they know it needs to survive because the alternative is chaos and death.

The alternative is actually a full-time October 7th. Yeah, yeah, right. And involving those parties. I mean, when Hamas took leadership in Gaza, they started throwing people off the rooftops and roofs of buildings. It's not Jews. Then it was other Arabs because they weren't members of Hamas. They were members of another group, like you said, the Palestinian Authority. I mean, it's short-term history, Jeff, that is totally ignored by the left on college campuses and the media that we somehow have this united Palestinian movement that doesn't actually exist.

Right. There is no united Palestinian movement. There seems to be a race among the different factions, and it's not just the PLO, also known as, you know, the PA, or al-Hamas. There's Islamic Jihad, there's PFLP, all kinds of groups. It's like a race to see, you know, who can be the better ones at committing Jewish genocide.

But that's the whole argument. There isn't really an argument about who's going to coexist with Israel and the Jews. No one ever from any group, including the PLO slash PA, has ever articulated a vision of coexisting with a Jewish state. Another move by the Biden administration, I mean, it just seems like a slap in the face when Israel is dealing with what they're dealing with, and they're supposed to be such a central ally to the United States, especially in the Middle East, that we work so closely with. And while our own troops have been killed by, again, the same nation state that is funding all these groups that even attacked Israel, Iran, and we had our own troops killed by them, that we're going to ban, again, Israelis from the West Bank somehow engaged in violence, and however that's going to be determined.

I just don't understand that this is the time they feel like they want to start announcing these new policies. Let's talk about that. I saw a terrific video put out by an Israeli that challenged President Biden and said, okay, you're supposed to be our friend. So you're talking about Israeli settler violence. Please name a single Palestinian, a single Arab that's been killed by Jewish settlers this last year.

How about last five years? You can't name one that wasn't killed in defense while they were committing an act of terror against the Jewish people they call settlers. Meanwhile, you can go through the list this past year before October 7th of families that were destroyed, siblings that were killed by Palestinians in Judea and Samaria, in the West Bank, as it's called. So this is a one-sided violence which is being used against the Jews, and now our country is talking about somehow punishing the Jews for simply trying to defend themselves from that violence. Jeff, we're on it, and we know you're on it as well, and we appreciate the work you're doing in Israel and the United States, that we're doing through the ACLJ and ACLJ Jerusalem. And folks, we're going to be on this issue too now, not just at the U.N., which we are on every single month, literally, but with the United States government and with Congress too.

As Jeff said, you're looking at the constitutional issues and this recognition, a potential move that the U.S. and U.K. seem to be working on together as permanent members of the Security Council. So you want to go to ACLJ.org. We've got an awesome video there too at ACLJ.org slash Defend Israel on the myth of Palestine too, which you can share, we encourage you to share with your friends and family at ACLJ.org slash Defend Israel. We've got our matching moment right now, reply brief due in the case on the 14th Amendment in four days. Donate.

Matching doubled. ACLJ.org. We'll be right back. Welcome back to Secula. We'll take your calls to 1-800-684-3110. There's another issue that I wanted to actually bring people back to.

It goes back to 2021. It's called the Praise Act. It was protecting religious assembly in states of emergency act. This of course happened under COVID when you had the shutdowns and churches were being, and places of worship were being treated worse than casinos and bars and other businesses. And so where you'd have like a casino being able to operate at 50%, but a church that had 5,000 seats in it could only have 50 people at a time. They couldn't go to 50%.

It didn't matter what their capacity was. So we began work, and Ben Sisney did it, and the first one was in Oklahoma in 2021 to put forward the Praise Act. And the ACLJ has been working throughout the country. 22 states have now passed the Praise Act. We're working on the next 28.

It did start slowing down a little bit as the restrictions started moving, but we looked and said, okay, who's left really that doesn't have any kind of protection? And there were some surprising states. One of those was Georgia. And so Don Parsons from our legal team here at the ACLJ yesterday was, kind of a last minute thing, was able to testify before a committee in Georgia who both took testimony on this was able to pass it out, recognize the ACLJ. There will be the vote on the House floor. I think that will easily move through there and get through the Senate in Georgia. But we're also working on it in about nine more states. I wanted you to just get to see one of our attorneys testifying at the state level and again to see how this work gets done state by state. You know, we're up to 22. This would be number 23 and we're trying to get to 28 by the end of this year that have that clear protection and ultimately in all 50 states.

But you can watch it and of course you'll be able to hear it as well if you're listening to the show. I thank Chairman Collins and members of the committee. I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify virtually in support of House Bill 925 and thanks to Representative Saints for sponsoring the Praise Act. The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdown shuttered houses of worship across the country. Many houses of worship have yet to recover from these draconian policies, both in terms of weekly attendance and providing charitable support to its members and communities.

Let us recall that in addition to weekly services, churches provide outreach to the homeless, counseling to marriages, programs for kids, and prayer for the sick. Yet during these same lockdowns, the government looked the other way for retail and entertainment corporations, many of which maintain the freedom to remain open and operate. Religious institutions face stark discrimination compared to other secular entities. This discrimination violated Americans' fundamental right to religious freedom. As noted earlier, Nevada had a rule where casinos could operate at 50%, but churches could only have 50 people, no matter the size. We cannot allow something like this to happen in Georgia or anywhere in the country. House Bill 925 ensures that houses of worship are treated in the same manner as other entities.

The government cannot discriminate against or close a place of worship during an emergency when other businesses are open. It must treat all institutions equally. The ACLJ has been doing this work for nearly four years.

You cannot treat religious groups differently solely because they are religious. Again, we support the Praise Act, and we ask for prompt consideration for its passage. And thank you again for letting me testify virtually, and I'm happy to answer any questions if that's permitted. We appreciate the American Center for Law and Justice. They've helped model that legislation in many other states to make sure that there's not an unintentional liability there. I'd like to make a motion to pass on this legislation, please.

LLC 442521ER. Second. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, like scientists. Okay. It is unanimous.

Thank you for being here with us today. So as you got to see, the testimony, and we got the unanimous vote, and then that moves to the floor of the Georgia House of Representatives. But Logan, again, it is the state-by-state work. Honestly, a lot of people see the federal work, they see the Supreme Court work. But that actually is the work that sometimes impacts them the most, and they felt that under COVID.

And we're making sure that we reach any kind of those moments again that churches aren't targeted and treated differently than businesses and bars and casinos. I want to make sure people also understand that the amount of work we do here. Sure, you may hear a broadcast like today that talks about all of the work we do internationally, all the work we're doing in the UK or in Europe or in Israel. You may hear about our work for Presidents, former Presidents of the United States. You may hear all of this and go, well, that's great.

I'm glad they're up there. We're also here for you. If you have a church, if you have an issue that we can be a part of, you can go to ACLJ.org at any time slash help and fill out for legal help. That goes directly to someone on our legal team. That doesn't go to a spam box.

Someone will reach out to you. If it's within our scope, we'll represent you at absolutely no charge. Yeah, I mean, I think, again, it's just important, like Logan said, it's ACLJ.org slash help and just like this Colorado Republican Party and other Republican parties that reached out to us saying, ACLJ, can you help us fight back against these 14th Amendment issues? And it ultimately goes all the way to the US Supreme Court. A lot of those started in state courts.

Some of those started even before state courts, but in administrative reviews like in Maine, remember. And now, very quickly, you're already filing a reply brief as a party in the next four days. And we've got a matching moment, Logan. We just launched it today. People got the email because our team's been on this. I mean, it's been a very quick process because, one, we were doing this in a dozen or more states where we had cases moving or starting or even going all the way through the process, as well as the move at the US Supreme Court as a party filing the initial brief. The writ for certiorari, then the initial brief, then, of course, a reply brief, which is due in four days. And so we've got a group of donors that have launched a matching moment through that deadline, which is Monday, for us to file the reply brief. And then everybody will get to see that at ACLJ.org. So those donors understand, like you said, all the work that we're doing and also, of course, the speediness and the ability to put resources towards something quickly.

Yeah, exactly. Especially if you become an ACLJ champion, what that's doing is you're saying, hey, I will be a monthly recurring donor. And what that does, instead of us having to only rely on people who go in, feel motivated, give a one-time donation, which is excellent, by the way. We're very happy when people do that.

The vast majority of people do that. But if you become a champion, that's helped set us a budget to kind of have a baseline of where we're going to go, what we can do, what we can have. And also, have those funds ready when there's a moment like this, a matching moment that needs to happen, where we need to be able to jump in at any time.

And having those people, having champions is really important. Yeah, I mean, again, next week, and I'm sure with the reply brief that we'll file and, of course, with the oral argument, we'll be able to comment on more to you and we'll all get to listen, we'll all get to hear. And I think we're actually going to know fairly soon for the Supreme Court. I mean, you look at the election calendar and the Republican primary. You've got Nevada coming up. That's, Donald Trump is the only one who can get votes there because the caucus, so that's not really an issue. And then there's the primary in South Carolina on the 23rd. I don't think we're going to get a decision before then, but you never know. But, you know, Super Tuesday is March 5th. I mean, it's less than a month from the date of oral argument, but that's a month from Monday. I mean, if the Supreme Court wanted to make it clear, they could clarify it before one of the most important days in the nominating calendar. Yeah, there may not be as much anticipation heading into the Super Tuesday, but for us and the legal work, there absolutely is. Yeah, and again, the idea, too, that there's still two people in this race and there are people giving serious money to another candidate. I kind of think it's over, but there's donors putting money into another candidate as well, even though, as you pointed out, in South Carolina, which is the next major state, the former governor there is in the newest poll, is down like 22 points to President Trump, who's at 52%.

So he's over 50% there as well to Nikki Haley at 38, but she also received two Super PACs, over $100 million because people want her to stay in the race. So we've got a lot to talk about, but make sure you take part in that matching moment. We file our reply brief Monday at ACLJ.org. Double your day.
Whisper: medium.en / 2024-02-10 09:20:55 / 2024-02-10 09:40:41 / 20

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime