Report: Gazans Fleeing to Israel, Risking Death to Escape Hamas Oppression
A growing number of Palestinians are fleeing the Gaza Strip for Israel, Israeli news site nrg reported on Sunday.'Big embarrassment for Obama' as DNC chair blocks support for Iran nuclear deal
According to the report, the reason for the exodus is the oppressive rule of terror group Hamas, which has controlled the coastal enclave since 2007.
The number of Gazans attempting to make the move has steadily risen since Israel’s 50-day war against Hamas terrorists last summer, dubbed Operation Protective Edge, nrg said. When apprehended by Israeli authorities, the absconders told interrogators about their poor living conditions and the repressive Hamas regime.
The IDF interrogations revealed that the refugees are even willing to risk going to prison — or being killed by security forces mistaking them for terrorists — due to widespread hunger and fear of Hamas.
The fugitives also said that Hamas was acting to prevent the exit of Palestinians from Gaza into Israel, for fear they will become Israeli collaborators. They explained that since the establishment by Hamas of an administrative route near the border fence with Israel, which is guarded by Hamas fighters, they are forced to crawl under the fence, to avoid being caught and executed.
Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz blocked a resolution that would have backed U.S. President Barack Obama's Iran nuclear deal, which curbs Iran's nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars in sanctions relief, The Washington Post reported Saturday.Republican Senators: Filibuster on Iran Would Be a 'Gift'
Citing "knowledgeable Democrats," the paper reported that during the party's summer meeting, Wasserman Schultz had prevented a vote on a resolution seeking to put the national committee on record as supporting the nuclear agreement between Iran and six world powers, ahead of a crucial vote in Congress that will seal its fate.
A CNN panel described the incident as the "president's big embarrassment."
"The Obama-controlled DNC could not pass a resolution this weekend expressing support for President Obama's Iran deal," New York Times reporter Jonathan Martin said during the panel debate. "It's a bit of an embarrassment for the administration seeing as it's his party; he appointed Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and it's revived the sort of latest round of eye-rolling among Democratic operatives about the state of the party."
CNN host John King said Martin was being diplomatic, saying it was a "big embarrassment for the president."
"We wanted to show support for the president," James Zogby, the co-chair of the DNC's Resolutions Committee, told The Washington Post. "We found that the best way to show support was a letter that members would sign on to, and the overwhelming majority of DNC members signed onto the letter."
Republicans intend to “hammer” Senate Democrats next month if they do not allow a vote on a measure disapproving President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, according to The Hill.GOP Senator: States Can Undo Iran Deal Damage
Republicans, who oppose the deal unanimously, need the support of six Democrats to break a filibuster by Democrats, while the deal's supporters need 41 Senate votes to block the measure of disapproval. So far, 30 Senate Democrats have committed to voting in favor of the Iran agreement, and only two Democrats have broken ranks.
If the resolution is filibustered, it would be a major victory for the White House, which wouldn’t have to resort to a presidential veto to keep the Iran deal alive.
However, opponents of the deal warned that Senate Democrats would pay a political cost for such a move.
“Democrats will be setting themselves up for a further political hit if they deny the people the opportunity —the people meaning members of Congress — to vote on it,” said Allen Roth, the president Secure America Now, which opposes the Iran agreement. “I think it’ll be handing a political gift to the Republicans.”
Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma has co-authored an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal urging individual US states to widen sanctions against Iran even as the White House and Congress undo their sanctions against the rogue Islamist republic.
President Barack Obama’s deal with Iran “welcomes Iran as a participant in the world community conditioned only on marginal changes to its nuclear program. It effectively allows Iran to maintain technology that would lead to a nuclear weapon, as well as continue its human-rights abuses, sponsoring of terrorism, imprisoning of American hostages, and threats to American allies, including Israel,” writes Inhofe, in an article co-signed by Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma’s attorney general.
“Fortunately,” the two write, “the U.S. states have the power to limit these threats, if they all choose to use it.” They justify this by noting that it was Obama who chose to turn the major international accord as an executive agreement, rather than as a treaty, “in order to evade the Constitution’s requirement of two-thirds approval by the U.S. Senate for enactment.” Since Obama skirted the people’s representatives in Congress – “the people, through the states, may come to their own decisions regarding sanctions on Iran.”
