Washington Free Beacon: Trump Admin Revokes Visas for Palestinian Officials Ahead of UN General Assembly Meeting, Citing ‘Incitement to Terrorism’

The Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization have long had a “pay-to-slay” policy of providing money to imprisoned terrorists and their families

The Trump administration on Friday revoked visas for Palestinian officials seeking to attend the U.N. General Assembly in New York City next month, denying them entry into the United States as punishment for inciting terrorism against Israel and pursuing statehood outside of the established peace process.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio “is denying and revoking visas from members of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian National Authority (PA) ahead of the upcoming United Nations General Assembly,” a State Department spokesman confirmed to the Washington Free Beacon. The Trump administration’s decision marks the first time the U.S. government has denied the Palestinian government permission to attend the U.N. gathering.

“The Trump Administration has been clear: it is in our national security interests to hold the PLO and PA accountable for not complying with their commitments, and for undermining the prospects for peace,” the State Department spokesman told the Free Beacon.

The decision is meant to derail the Palestinian officials’ unilateral bid to seek statehood when the U.N. General Assembly convenes for a session expected to revolve around the issue. France and Saudi Arabia hosted a two-state solution summit last month in hopes of building momentum for the recognition of a Palestinian state among U.N. member nations.

French president Emmanuel Macron announced last month he “will recognize the State of Palestine” as part of his country’s “commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.”

The U.S. government will only consider the PA and PLO “partners for peace” if they “consistently repudiate terrorism—including the October 7 massacre—and end incitement to terrorism in education, as required by law and as promised by the PLO,” the State Department spokesman said in a statement.

One of the more noteworthy forms of both organizations’ support for terrorism is known as “pay-to-slay,” a program in which the PA and PLO provide millions of dollars to imprisoned terrorists and their families. While PA president Mahmoud Abbas announced the end of the policy earlier this year, he subsequently said, “Even if we have [only] one penny left, it is for the prisoners and Martyrs.” There is no evidence to suggest the PA ceased its payments to terrorists after Abbas’s decree.

The PA must also end its pursuit of legal charges against Israel at the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice, which the Trump administration described as “attempts to bypass negotiations.”

The State Department spokesman cited the PA’s “efforts to secure the unilateral recognition of a conjectural Palestinian state” as another reason for the punitive measures. “Both steps materially contributed to Hamas’s refusal to release its hostages, and to the breakdown of the Gaza ceasefire talks,” he said.

Preexisting agreements between the United States and United Nations mean the PA’s mission to the international organization will still receive waivers, but the State Department will not permit Abbas and other senior officials to enter the country.

The Trump administration said it “remains open to re-engagement that is consistent with our laws, should the PA/PLO meet their obligations and demonstrably take concrete steps to return to a constructive path of compromise and peaceful coexistence with the State of Israel.”

The decision to revoke the visas came after the State Department imposed sanctions on Palestinian officials in the West Bank last month over those leaders’ support for terrorism, “including incitement and glorification of violence.”

A senior State Department official told the Free Beacon ahead of the July two-state summit the “U.S. would absolutely consider blocking” the visas should Palestinian officials “try to even decide to visit the United States.”

“The heads of the PA have openly praised the horrific attack that took place on Oct. 7. They celebrated terrorism and the killing of hundreds of innocent people,” the official said at the time.

It’s time to move the United Nations headquarters from New York to Switzerland. The U.S. has no business controlling their dialogue and debate in this manner.

There will be no peace until the Palestinians get their due. If that means the end of Israel, so be it!

Newsweek: “Nuclear power”: NATO ally issues Trump credibility warning over Russia

French President Emmanuel Macron has warned that the global credibility of the United States and its NATO allies is on the line in Ukraine, as U.S. President Donald Trump attempts to end the Russian invasion once and for all.

Why It Matters

Macron made the comment after talks in Washington on Monday between Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and the leaders of Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, the European Union and NATO, following up on Trump’s talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday.

While no agreement has been reached to end the more than three-year war, Monday’s gathering laid the groundwork for a long-anticipated trilateral meeting between Trump, Zelensky and Putin.

Macron’s warning about the credibility of the U.S. and its allies is a reminder of the far-reaching implications of the peace effort that Trump is promoting.

What To Know

Macron, in an interview with NBC News, said that how the United States and its allies handled the war in Ukraine would have global consequences for their credibility.

“What’s happening in Ukraine is extremely important for Ukrainian people, obviously, but for the whole security of Europe, because we speak about containing a nuclear power, which decided just not to respect international borders anymore,” he said.

“And I think it’s very important for your country because it’s a matter of credibility,” he said. “The way we will behave in Ukraine will be a test for our collective credibility in the rest of the world.”

Macron said Trump was confident he could reach a deal to end the war in Ukraine, which he welcomed while stressing that any agreement must not have negative consequences for Ukraine and its European allies.

“My point … is to be sure that this deal is not detrimental to Ukraine and Europe,” Macron said.

“All of us, we want a deal, and we want a peace deal. But we want to make sure that this peace, and so this deal, will be something which will allow the Ukrainians to recover their country and live in peace, to be sure the day after this peace deal that they will have sufficient deterrence power not to be attacked again, and to be sure—for the Europeans—that they will live in peace and security,” he said.

But the French president appeared less upbeat about Putin’s attitude to ending the full-scale invasion Russia launched in 2022.

“When I look at the situation and the facts, I don’t see President Putin very willing to get peace now,” he said, adding, “But perhaps I’m too pessimistic.”

Macron said he still hoped for a ceasefire even though Trump said after meeting Putin on Friday that a ceasefire was not an essential step toward a deal.

“It’s impossible for a Ukrainian president and Ukrainian officials to have talks about peace as their country is being destroyed and as their civilians are being killed,” Macron said, adding that security guarantees for Ukraine were vital.

“If you make any peace deal without security guarantees, Russia will never respect its words, will never comply with its own commitments,” Macron said.

Macron also said that in the absence of progress, Russia should be hit with more sanctions.

“I’m very much in favor of the fact that if, at the end of the day, there is no serious progress during the bilateral, or if there is a refusal of the trilateral meeting and, or if the Russians don’t comply with this approach, yes, we have to increase the sanctions, secondary and primary sanctions, in order to increase the pressure on the Russians to do so,” he said, according to a transcript of the interview provided by NBC.

What People Are Saying

French President Emmanuel Macron told NBC: “Your president, indeed, is very confident about the capacity he has to get this deal done, which is good news for all of us and can break this—I would say this daily killings, which are the responsibility of the Russian aggressor. So I think it’s great news. My point—and this is why we’ve worked so hard during the past few months and we need this convergence—is to be sure that this deal is not detrimental to Ukraine and Europe.”

What Happens Next

Trump has established a two-week timeline for determining diplomatic progress, saying both sides would soon know “whether or not we’re going to solve this or is this horrible fighting going to continue.”

The proposed Putin-Zelensky meeting is expected to precede trilateral discussions that include Trump, though specific timing and location remain undetermined. Russian officials have indicated a willingness to continue direct negotiations, but full agreement on meeting parameters has not been confirmed.

https://www.newsweek.com/macron-nato-trump-nuclear-russia-credibility-warning-2115451

Daily Beast: Shallow Trump Pressures Zelensky to Wear a Suit to the White House

The Ukrainian president is reportedly planning to ditch his military-style sweatshirt for a black jacket to avoid another White House showdown.

All eyes will be on Volodymyr Zelensky when he arrives at the White House on Monday afternoon—if only to see what he’s wearing when he meets President Donald Trump.

Ukraine’s wartime president found himself the target of a pile-on in his last Oval Office visit in February, when Vice President JD Vance accused him of being “disrespectful” to the U.S. by not wearing a suit and tie.

Keen to avoid a repeat, White House officials have reportedly been pressing Zelensky to dress up for Monday’s crucial talks at the White House, where Zelensky and Trump will be joined a slew of major European leaders.

Citing two sources inside the Trump administration, Axios reported Monday that the White House had explicitly asked Ukrainian officials whether Zelensky would be wearing a suit to the Oval Office.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

One source told the outlet that Zelensky would be wearing the same sort of black jacket he wore to meet Trump at the NATO summit in June, rather his usual army-style sweatshirt. “Trump was happy about that,” Axios reported in its newsletter.

Monday’s talks, which come on the heels of Trump’s summit meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, could help bring an end to Europe’s bloodiest conflict since World War II.

But all anyone in MAGAworld seems to have cared about over the past few days is what Zelensky will be wearing when he shakes Trump’s hand.

In a scathing preview of the Oval Office talks, Real America’s Voice host Brian Glenn told viewers on Sunday: “Two questions right now. One: Will we have peace? But two: Will Zelensky wear a suit?”

The channel, which calls itself the “authentic voice and passion of real people all across America,” then played a clip from Zelensky’s infamous visit to the White House earlier this year when Glenn himself sparked a brutal pile-on from the room by criticizing Zelensky for what he was wearing.

Zelensky’s casual battle dress was reminiscent of that worn by previous wartime leaders during visits to the White House, including Britain’s prime minister during WWII, Winston Churchill. But the February meeting descended into acrimony, with Vance leading what many observers considered an ambush of Zelensky.

Zelensky will be joined at the White House by European leaders including Britain’s Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron of France who will try to persuade Trump that the pressure should be on Putin to end the conflict he started in 2022. Casualties are widely reported to be past the million mark after more than three years of attritional fighting.

The Oval Office talks come just days the Alaska summit, at which no real progress appears to have been made—and which some White House officials reportedly left looking ashen-faced.

Trump rolled out the red carpet for Putin, who has largely been ostracized by the international community since his full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. After greeting him like an old friend, Trump let Putin talk first at a post-summit press conference—with no actual questions allowed—and even game him a lift in his armored “Beast” limousine.

It remains clear, however, that Putin is still clinging to his maximalist demands for sovereignty over large parts of Ukraine and subsequent demilitarization.

Trump is expected to greet Zelensky today at 1 p.m. ET, with a series of meetings with other European leaders scheduled throughout the afternoon.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/shallow-trump-pressures-zelensky-to-wear-a-suit-to-the-white-house

BBC: ‘About our lives, but without our voice’: Sidelined Ukrainians look on

Five thousand miles from Alaska, and feeling left out, Ukrainians were bracing themselves on Friday for the outcome of negotiations to which they were not invited.

The talks, between US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, will begin later in the day with no seat for the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky.

Trump signalled earlier this week that “land swaps” could be on the table – largely interpreted to mean the surrender of Ukrainian land to Russia.

In Ukraine, where polls consistently show that about 95% of the population distrusts Putin, there is a uneasy mix of deep scepticism about the talks and deep fatigue with the war.

“This question touches me directly,” said Tetyana Bessonova, 30, from Pokrovsk – one of the eastern cities whose future is in question if land were surrendered to Russia.

“My hometown is on the line of fire. If active fighting stops, would I be able to return?” she said.

Questions of negotiations, of land swaps, of the redrawing of boundaries were deeply painful to those who grew up in the affected regions, Bessonova said.

“This is the place I was born, my homeland,” she said. “These decisions might mean I could never go home again. That I and many others will lose all hope of return.”

The French President, Emmanuel Macron, said on Wednesday that Trump had agreed on a call with European leaders that no territorial concessions would be made without Ukraine’s approval. And Trump has said he intends to hold a second summit with Zelensky present, before anything is agreed.

But Trump can be unpredictable. He is often said to favour the views of the person he spoke to most recently. So there is little faith in Ukraine that he won’t be swayed by Putin, particularly in a one-on-one meeting.

The very fact of the closed door meeting was bad for Ukraine, said Oleksandr Merezhko, a Ukrainian MP and chair of the country’s parliamentary committee on foreign affairs. “Knowing Trump, he can change his opinion very quickly. There is great danger in that for us.”

Merezhko said he feared that, such was Trump’s desire to be seen as a dealmaker, he may have privately made advance agreements with the Russians. “Trump doesn’t want embarrassment, and if nothing is achieved, he will be embarrassed,” the MP said. “The question is, what could be in those agreements?”

Various possibilities have been suggested for arrangements that could lead to a ceasefire, from a freezing of the current frontlines – with no formal recognition of the seized territory as Russian – to a maximalist position of Russia annexing four entire regions in eastern and southern Ukraine.

Polls suggest that about 54% of Ukrainians support some form of land compromise in order to hasten the end of the war, but only with security guarantees from Ukraine’s international partners. So deep and widespread is the distrust of Russia, that many believe an agreement to freeze the frontlines without security guarantees would simply be an invitation to Russia to rest, rearm, and reattack.

“If we freeze the frontlines and cede territories it will only serve as a platform for a new offensive,” said Volodymyr, a Ukrainian sniper serving in the east of the country. In accordance with military protocol, he asked to be identified only by his first name.

“Many soldiers gave their lives for these territories, for the protection of our country,” Volodymyr said. “A freeze would mean demobilization would begin, wounded and exhausted soldiers would be discharged, the army would shrink, and during one of these rotations the Russians would strike again. But this time, it would be the end of our country.”

Across Ukraine, people from all walks of life were making very tough decisions about the reality of their future, said Anton Grushetsky, the director of the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, which regularly polls the population about the war.

One of the toughest decisions was whether to accept the idea of giving de facto control of some Ukrainian soil to Russia, he said. “It’s 20% of our land and these are our people. But Ukrainians are showing us that they are flexible, they are telling us that they will accept various forms of security guarantees.”

According to the institute’s polling, 75% of Ukrainians are totally opposed to giving Russia formal ownership of any territory. Among the remaining 25%, there were some people who were pro-Russian, Grushetsky said, and some who were simply so fatigued by the war that they felt hard compromises were necessary.

“My belief is that the war should be stopped in any way possible,” said Luibov Nazarenko, 70, a retired factory worker from Donetsk region, in Ukraine’s east.

“The further it goes, the worse it becomes,” she said. “The Russians have already occupied the Kherson region and they want Odesa. All this must be stopped, so the youth do not die.”

Nazarenko has a son who is not yet fighting but could be called up. She said she believed that three years into the war, with hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded on the Ukrainian side alone, the preservation of life superseded all concerns over land.

“I just don’t want people to die,” she said. “Not the youth, not the old people, not the civilians who live on the frontline.”

On Friday, as the clock ticked down to the beginning of the talks in Alaska, Ukrainians were celebrating a holy day – the day of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is the day when she is believed to listen to the prayers of all who need her.

At St Michael’s Monastery, a church in central Kyiv, priest Oleksandr Beskrovniy was leading a prayer service for several dozen people. Afterwards, he said it was hard to find words to describe the unfairness of the coming talks, but called it a “great injustice and madness” to leave Zelensky out.

Like others, the priest recognised the grim reality facing Ukraine, he said – that it was not in a position to recapture its stolen territory by force. So some deal needed to be made. But it should be thought of less in terms of land, Beskrovniy said, and more in terms of people.

“If we are forced to cede territory – if the world allows this – the most important thing is that we gather all of our people. The world must help us get our people out.”

In his prayers on Friday, the priest did not refer directly to the talks in Alaska, he said – “no names or places of meetings”.

But he prayed for the future strength of Ukraine, he said. “On the frontline, and in the diplomatic space.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm21l237pkpo

Alternet: The horrifyingly probable truth about Trump’s humiliation on the global stage

While the long or immediate-term fallout from Trump’s decision to bomb Iran’s enriched uranium facilities remains to be seen, legal experts are still debating whether Trump’s conduct was Constitutional.

There are plenty of legal opinions on both sides. Here’s mine: No, it wasn’t, because there was no evidence that either the US or Israel faced an imminent threat; Israel announced that it had set back Iran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon by several years days beforeTrump jumped into the brawl. Three or four years is not “imminent” under anyone’s definition.

Worse, by unilaterally bombing a sovereign nation that had not attacked the US, despite the laudable goal of disarming a terrorist-supporting state, Trump has accelerated the US’ dangerous slide into authoritarianism.

So what, then, did Trump care about before taking the extraordinary risk of entering the Middle East’s forever war? The timing suggests it wasn’t strategy. It was ego.

Trump pulled the trigger following two globally embarrassing events. His $45 million strongman military parade was an international joke outside of Fox News stations. Equally awful for a demagogue, Trump was roundly embarrassed at the G7 meeting while Netanyahu was enjoying extraordinary success in Iran.

In a widely under-reported story, Trump said he left the G7 early to “deal with” Israel, which apparently meant posting childish and impulsive warlock braggadocio on truth social. He beat his breast hard enough to signal Iran to move its 900 lb stash of enriched uranium, which put Israel—and us—in further danger, the outcome of which cannot yet be known.

Global press rejected Trump’s explanation for leaving the G7 early, reporting instead that he left early because the adults in the room refused to show him artificial deference. During the G7 opening press conference, Trump went on an inappropriate partisan tirade so bizarre that Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney interrupted him and ended the press conference. The Italian Prime Minister was seen rolling eyes, presumably at Trump, and the world laughed at Trump’s petty insults against France’s Prime Minister Macron, of whom Trump appears to be jealous.

After all that, Trump tried to flex mob-boss strength to the press, announcing that the British Prime Minister had earned a trade framework protecting British trade because “I like them, that’s why. That’s their ultimate protection.” Those sound like words from a man who knows he’s just been insulted by people he doesn’t like.

Humiliated on the global stage by both events, unwisely hidden from viewers at home by Fox News, Trump desperately needed to recast himself as a strongman for the rest of the world. Some have speculated with credible evidence that Trump resented watching Netanyahu get all the glory, especially after it became clear that Israel’s aggression against Iran had been spectacularly successful. On June 13, while Israel’s bombs were falling, Trump told New York Times reporter Helene Cooper that he still held his “America First,” ie, isolationist, perspective.

The next day, however, after a full day of watching Fox News lavish Netanyahu with praise, Trump changed his mind. Even though no new intelligence had come in, and Israel was already winning its fight, one official told Cooper that Trump’s shift in attitude started early the next morning when he woke up and watched Fox News. When he saw how Netanyahu was being praised as powerful and strategic, he wanted in on the action. Cooper noted that, “Israel was hitting all of these Iranian sites, it was taking out military commanders, nuclear scientists, and that was being presented on Fox as this huge victory. And (Trump) decided that he wanted a piece of it.”

In further support of this theory, Trump also started taking immediate credit for Israel’s successes. He claimed on June 17 in a truth social post that, “We” have taken control of Iran’s airspace,” and that a meeting with his national security advisers had cemented the decision to enter the war.

https://www.alternet.org/alternet-exclusives/trump-nato-2672495759

The Independent: Under Trump, 80 years of collective security have been dismantled in as many days

The Atlantic Alliance used to believe it had liberal democratic values in common and a shared interest in collective security and free trade. That, thanks to the US president, is no longer true. Europe must adjust to this altered reality, or die.

It may be that the US’s tilt to the Kremlin, accompanied by the twin-track diplomatic and trade wars now being waged on friends and allies, will before long drive Europe to stand on its own two feet and be the independent force in world affairs that the founding fathers of the project of European unity dreamed about. At long last, Europe begins to assert itself. To borrow a famous phrase from a happier era of US-European relations, Europe, like president Barack Obama, is saying: “Yes we can.”

The “coalition of the willing” (or “coalition of action”, as French president Emmanuel Macron prefers to call it) is a concrete example of this emerging European consciousness. The project is to provide a safe and secure future for Ukraine, irrespective of what Russia or the US might desire. Russia is rightly distrusted, while there is still hope that the Americans can contribute in some way to keeping the peace in Ukraine – and in Europe more widely.

Under Trump, 80 years of collective security have been dismantled in as many days | The Independent