Feed aggregator

An Israir rescue flight scheduled to bring Israelis from Dubai to Tel Aviv on Thursday, Oct. 8, has been canceled after authorities in the United Arab Emirates abruptly withdrew the approval previously granted for the flight, throwing renewed uncertainty over the final stage of Israel’s operation to bring stranded travelers home.

Israeli passengers who had been scheduled to travel on Israir Flight 6H662 were informed Tuesday that the flight would not operate as planned. Although the cancellation currently applies to that flight, questions remain over whether additional rescue flights scheduled from Dubai will be affected.

Israir notified passengers: “Dear passengers, unfortunately, the approvals granted to Israir to operate rescue flight 6H662 from Dubai to Tel Aviv, scheduled for 08.10.26, have now been unilaterally canceled by the authorities in the United Arab Emirates.”

The airline said it is working with the relevant authorities in an effort to restore the flight or arrange another solution for affected passengers. Israir told travelers that it expects to provide another update by 10 a.m. Wednesday, Oct. 7.

The latest cancellation comes after several days of shifting approvals and logistical complications surrounding flights from Dubai. Israeli carriers had initially sought permission to operate special rescue services after FlyDubai suspended its Israel operations following the attempted terrorist attack aboard Flight FZ1073 from Dubai to Tel Aviv.

Israir announced last Friday that it had received the necessary authorization from Dubai airport authorities for rescue operations, although at that stage it was still waiting for final clearance from all Israeli security authorities involved. The airline subsequently began operating flights, with its first rescue flight carrying approximately 180 Israelis arriving in Israel late Friday.

El Al and Arkia have also been operating limited rescue services from Dubai, while Etihad has continued flying between Abu Dhabi and Tel Aviv. Regular service by Israeli airlines to the UAE has not yet returned to its pre-crisis schedule.

The rescue operation itself has already encountered repeated obstacles. On Oct. 2, El Al was forced to cancel planned rescue flights after approval for Israeli carriers to land in Dubai was withdrawn. The situation shifted again later that day, with Arkia and Israir obtaining approvals that allowed rescue flights to begin.

Another complication arose over baggage and security arrangements in Dubai. Because of disagreements surrounding security procedures, some passenger flights were required to operate separately from aircraft carrying travelers’ luggage, adding another layer of complexity to the effort.

Despite those difficulties, thousands of Israelis have already returned from the UAE since the operation began. According to Transportation Ministry figures released Tuesday, 941 passengers had returned aboard special flights operated by Israeli carriers from Dubai, while another 2,102 had flown home aboard Etihad flights from Abu Dhabi — more than 3,000 passengers altogether.

Earlier Tuesday, before the latest Israir cancellation became known, the Transportation Ministry said the special repatriation operation was expected to conclude Thursday after the remaining scheduled flights were completed.

The ministry said the first flights had already landed in Israel on Friday and that efforts were continuing to return Israelis “quickly and safely.”

The Transportation Ministry added: “The Transportation Ministry continues to monitor passengers’ needs and is working to adapt the transportation response in accordance with developments and demand.”

The fresh withdrawal of Israir’s Oct. 8 authorization now raises questions about whether the rescue operation will be able to conclude Thursday as planned, with the airline awaiting either renewed Emirati approval or an alternative arrangement for passengers booked on Flight 6H662.

{Matzav.com}

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is casting Abdul El-Sayed’s campaign for U.S. Senate in Michigan as far more than a single election, telling supporters that a victory by the progressive Democrat could demonstrate that candidates from the party’s left wing can win well beyond their traditional political strongholds and potentially reshape the landscape heading into 2028.

Speaking Monday at a private fundraiser in New York for El-Sayed, Ocasio-Cortez described his campaign as part of a “generational project” and argued that winning a statewide contest in battleground Michigan could upend assumptions about where candidates aligned with the progressive movement can succeed.

“What we do is that we break open the entire political calculus in America — period,” Ocasio-Cortez said, according to a recording of her remarks. “Because if you can win, if Abdul can win in Michigan, anybody can win anywhere.”

“Anywhere,” she added.

Ocasio-Cortez has become one of El-Sayed’s most prominent supporters. She endorsed him during the Democratic primary and traveled to Michigan to campaign alongside him and Sen. Bernie Sanders. Her support for El-Sayed stretches back even further: She also endorsed his unsuccessful campaign for governor of Michigan in 2018.

El-Sayed, a physician and former Detroit health director, won the Democratic Senate nomination in August after defeating Rep. Haley Stevens in a closely watched primary that became a major battle between the party’s progressive and establishment wings. He is now facing Republican Mike Rogers for the seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Gary Peters.

“We are in a long-term — I’m being very open right now, right? — about our generational project that we have ahead of us,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “Generational. We are here to break the map.”

The New York congresswoman pointed not only to Michigan but also to Florida, where state Rep. Angie Nixon, a democratic socialist, is challenging Republican Sen. Ashley Moody. Ocasio-Cortez suggested that campaigns in states traditionally regarded as difficult terrain for the progressive left could change perceptions about the movement’s electoral limits.

“We are up against not just an ascendant and fascist right wing in this country,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “But we are also up against people with extremely small imaginations about what is possible in America.”

El-Sayed similarly told the New York gathering that the significance of his campaign extends beyond who occupies Michigan’s Senate seat next year. He portrayed a victory as a potential demonstration that the political assumptions of national strategists and pundits are wrong.

“What does it say about what America really wants, needs, and deserves if our state bucks all of the pundits and all of the pontificators who think that this is not possible?” El-Sayed said. “What does it tell them?

“It tells them just how big America is and exactly what we want.”

El-Sayed later said that “this one is for all the marbles” while emphasizing “the ripple effect that this race will have.”

The Michigan contest has emerged as one of the most closely watched Senate races of the 2026 midterms. El-Sayed entered the general election after a bitter Democratic primary in which outside groups spent tens of millions of dollars attempting to defeat him, with his positions on Israel and the Gaza war among the major flashpoints.

El-Sayed has been a sharp critic of U.S. military assistance to Israel and backed Michigan’s “uncommitted” effort during the 2024 Democratic presidential primary as a protest against the Biden administration’s handling of the Gaza war. Those positions have generated significant concern among pro-Israel Democrats and some Jewish voters in Michigan.

Since securing the nomination, however, El-Sayed has also consolidated support from major Democratic figures who were not originally aligned with his campaign. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who had supported Stevens during the primary, are now backing El-Sayed in the general election.

Barack Obama is also scheduled to campaign with El-Sayed at an Oct. 24 rally in Detroit alongside Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jocelyn Benson, timed to coincide with the beginning of early in-person voting in Michigan. Ocasio-Cortez and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani are also among the prominent Democrats appearing with El-Sayed during the campaign’s closing stretch.

The broader political implications of the race are particularly significant for Ocasio-Cortez as she considers her own future. The 36-year-old congresswoman, who turns 37 this month, has left open the possibility of seeking higher office in 2028, including either a presidential campaign or a run for U.S. Senate in New York.

Ocasio-Cortez acknowledged recently that one consideration is whether a particular political moment offers an opportunity that may not come again.

“There’s an argument that some make that this is a very unique political window and, oftentimes in politics, you do only get one shot,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

She has also recently traveled through upstate New York, making stops in Buffalo, Syracuse and Ithaca, appearances that have drawn additional attention because Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s seat will be on the ballot in 2028.

Schumer, who would be 77 at the time of that election, has not announced whether he intends to seek another term. Ocasio-Cortez has likewise made no announcement about whether she would challenge him, seek the presidency or remain in the House.

Against that backdrop, the Michigan contest has become something of a real-world test for the political movement Ocasio-Cortez has helped build. A victory by El-Sayed in a presidential battleground state would provide progressives with evidence for their argument that their candidates can compete outside heavily Democratic districts, while a defeat would provide fresh ammunition to Democrats who argue that the party risks losing winnable races by nominating candidates too far to the left.

For Ocasio-Cortez, however, her message to supporters Monday was that the ambitions behind El-Sayed’s campaign extend well beyond Election Day in Michigan: “Generational. We are here to break the map.”

{Matzav.com}

More than 1,200 foreign airline crew members from countries that do not maintain diplomatic relations with Israel have been permitted to enter the country since the beginning of 2026, including citizens of Syria, Lebanon and Oman, according to newly revealed figures that are raising fresh questions about Israel’s screening of foreign aviation personnel.

The number, reported Tuesday by Kan News, has taken on particular significance following the attempted hijacking of a FlyDubai flight bound for Tel Aviv, after it emerged that the Omani co-pilot accused of carrying out the attack had previously drawn the attention of authorities in his own country over concerns about extremist activity.

The figure does not mean that the 1,200 crew members were suspected of terrorism or other wrongdoing. Rather, it highlights the extent to which foreign airline personnel from countries ordinarily subject to heightened Israeli entry restrictions routinely arrive as part of international flight crews — and has fueled questions about exactly how those individuals are vetted before being permitted to fly into Israel.

The Omani co-pilot at the center of the FlyDubai attack, Imam Al-Hamami, had not previously escaped the notice of authorities. According to reports that emerged following the attack, Omani officials had become concerned about his online activity and what they regarded as an excessive interest in radical ideology.

Those concerns were serious enough that Al-Hamami was reportedly removed from flying duties at Oman Air, the country’s national carrier. He was transferred to an office position and sent through an anti-extremism program.

But the information apparently stopped there. The Wall Street Journal reported that the concerns surrounding Al-Hamami were not transmitted to other relevant authorities or entered into a system that would have prevented him from obtaining another aviation job abroad.

Al-Hamami subsequently secured employment with FlyDubai. According to information published since the attack, the airline did not approach Omani authorities for a detailed account of his previous employment or the reasons he had stopped flying for Oman Air. Instead, the hiring process reportedly relied on a criminal-background check that did not reveal the earlier security concerns.

The apparent gap proved particularly consequential because Al-Hamami was not merely hired as a commercial pilot. He was assigned to routes serving Israel and had reportedly flown into the country several times before the attempted hijacking without being identified as a potential security threat.

Only after the attack did investigators begin piecing together the history of warnings surrounding him. Reuters reported that Al-Hamami subsequently told investigators in the United Arab Emirates that he had planned the attack even before FlyDubai hired him, a revelation that has intensified scrutiny of how he was able to secure the position and repeatedly operate flights to Israel.

Authorities in the UAE are now examining the conduct of FlyDubai personnel involved in hiring Al-Hamami and whether proper procedures were followed before he was permitted to fly for the carrier.

Investigators in Abu Dhabi and Yerushalayim are also reportedly examining whether Al-Hamami’s radicalization may have begun earlier, including during a period in which he lived in Australia. Authorities are seeking to reconstruct his activities and determine when warning signs first appeared and whether information existed that could have prevented him from gaining access to an Israel-bound cockpit.

The attempted attack has now expanded into a broader examination of the system governing foreign airline crews entering Israel. Unlike ordinary travelers, airline personnel operate under specialized aviation procedures, raising questions about which Israeli agency is ultimately responsible for ensuring that potentially dangerous crew members are identified before they reach the country.

Transportation Minister Miri Regev said over the weekend that the responsibility for intelligence screening and security vetting of foreign flight crews does not rest with the Transportation Ministry. She said those duties belong to Israel’s security authorities.

The Wall Street Journal, however, has reported that the failures were not confined to FlyDubai or Oman. Its reporting also pointed to shortcomings on the Israeli side, including within the mechanisms overseen by Israeli authorities and the Transportation Ministry for screening foreign airline crews entering the country.

The disclosure that more than 1,200 crew members from countries without diplomatic relations with Israel have entered since January is now adding urgency to that dispute. Among those personnel were citizens of countries that remain formally hostile to Israel, including Syria and Lebanon, as well as Oman, which has no diplomatic relations with Israel.

The central question facing investigators is no longer only how Al-Hamami was hired by FlyDubai, but how information about a pilot who had reportedly already been flagged for extremist concerns failed to follow him through the international aviation system — and how he was subsequently able to fly repeatedly into Israel before allegedly attempting to bring down a passenger aircraft bound for Tel Aviv.

{Matzav.com}

Israeli President Isaac Herzog will present Israel’s highest civilian award for heroism on Thursday to six Israelis whose actions helped avert catastrophe aboard the FlyDubai flight from Dubai to Tel Aviv after the co-pilot attacked the captain and the aircraft plunged thousands of feet.

The six recipients of the President’s Award for Civilian Heroism are Or Bardilov, Yaniv Hayun, Dr. Shota Musayev, Tali Manes, Zvika Manes and Assaf Rajuan. The awards will be presented at a ceremony at the President’s Residence in Yerushalayim.

The six played different roles during the dramatic events aboard FlyDubai Flight FZ1073, which was carrying more than 170 people when the co-pilot attacked Indian Captain Smit Machchhar inside the cockpit as the aircraft was en route to Israel.

Despite suffering serious wounds, Machchhar fought with the attacker and managed to open the cockpit door, a move that ultimately allowed passengers to reach the cockpit and intervene.

Tali Manes, who was near the cockpit with her young daughter, heard the sounds of a violent struggle coming from inside and was the first to raise the alarm, calling on other passengers to help.

Yaniv Hayun, Zvika Manes and Assaf Rajuan responded and rushed toward the cockpit, where they confronted the attacker and managed to overpower and restrain him while placing themselves in serious danger.

During the struggle, with the aircraft rapidly losing altitude, Hayun also grabbed the controls and pulled back on them in an effort to stabilize the plane. Hayun, a plumber with no formal aviation training, later said that his limited understanding of what to do came from watching the television program “Air Crash Investigation.”

The passengers ultimately restrained the attacker with materials available aboard the aircraft, including headphone cables, while others guarded him as efforts shifted toward saving the wounded captain and getting the plane safely onto the ground.

Tali Manes continued taking action even after the immediate threat had been brought under control. According to the President’s Residence, she called for qualified pilots who were traveling as passengers in the rear of the aircraft to come forward and assist in regaining control of the plane.

Dr. Shota Musayev, a dentist, turned his attention to Machchhar, who was suffering from severe wounds and substantial blood loss. Musayev treated the captain for an extended period, working to stop the bleeding, monitoring his condition and keeping him conscious until the aircraft could make its emergency landing in Saudi Arabia.

The plane ultimately landed safely in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia, where the attacker was taken into custody. The captain was transported for emergency medical treatment.

In the days following the incident, the actions of the passengers and Machchhar drew widespread praise in Israel and abroad, with government leaders saying their intervention had prevented what could have become one of the deadliest aviation terror attacks in years.

Last week, Herzog personally contacted four of the passengers to tell them that he intended to recommend them to the advisory committee responsible for the civilian heroism award. As additional testimony about the incident emerged, the full extent of Tali Manes’ role became clearer, and Herzog subsequently spoke with her as well.

“Tali, the more we learn about what happened during those dramatic moments, the clearer it becomes just how significant a role you played in saving the lives of the passengers on the plane,” Herzog told her. “You heard that something terrible was happening, immediately understood the magnitude of the danger, raised the alarm, called for help, and did not stop taking action even after the attacker had been neutralized.”

Herzog praised Manes for continuing to think and act during the emergency even after the assailant had been restrained.

“The resourcefulness, sense of responsibility, and composure you displayed in moments of life-threatening danger are civilian heroism in the fullest sense of the word. You are a hero, Tali, and I am proud of you and thank you on behalf of the State of Israel.”

Herzog has also singled out Machchhar for praise, saying the Indian captain’s determination despite his grave injuries made it possible for the passengers to intervene and ultimately helped save those aboard the aircraft.

The President’s Award for Civilian Heroism is Israel’s highest civilian decoration recognizing acts of heroism. Herzog established the award following the October 7 massacre to formally recognize civilians who knowingly put their own lives in genuine danger to save others.

Recipients are selected after their actions are examined and an advisory committee submits its recommendations to the president. Previous honorees have included civilians whose extraordinary actions saved lives during the October 7 attacks and other life-threatening incidents.

Thursday’s ceremony will now recognize the six Israelis whose actions, together with those of Machchhar and others aboard the flight, turned what appeared to be a rapidly unfolding disaster in the skies into an extraordinary rescue in which the passengers were brought safely to the ground.

{Matzav.com}

Sen. Ted Cruz launched an extraordinary broadside against Tucker Carlson, accusing the conservative commentator of defending Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany after Carlson repeatedly questioned whether Britain benefited from defeating Hitler in World War II during a contentious interview with former British Cabinet minister Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Cruz devoted a significant portion of Monday’s “Verdict with Ted Cruz” podcast to Carlson’s interview, joining co-host Ben Ferguson in dissecting Carlson’s statements about Hitler, Britain, World War II and Russia. Cruz argued that the comments were part of what he sees as a broader shift in Carlson’s politics and worldview.

“Come on, Tucker didn’t go full Nazi, did he?” Cruz said sarcastically before playing audio from Carlson’s interview. “I want you to give a listen to Tucker saying that he really wishes Hitler had won World War II.”

Carlson did not, however, explicitly state during the exchange that he wished Hitler had won the war. Rather, Carlson repeatedly pressed Rees-Mogg on whether Britain was ultimately better off because it fought and defeated Nazi Germany.

“We did the right thing,” Rees-Mogg said.

“Is it a better country than it was? To have defeated Hitler, yes. So the U.K. is a better country now? It’s a healthier country now?” Carlson responded.

“Otherwise, we’d be speaking German,” Rees-Mogg replied.

“Who cares?” Carlson said. “There are a lot of people in Britain who can’t speak English. So it would be nice to have at least a European language spoken in your country.”

Rees-Mogg immediately rejected that reasoning. “We want to speak English. Thanks so much.”

Ferguson said he was “truly shocked” by the exchange, while Cruz pointed to his own public response to Carlson’s remarks.

“Yes, Tucker. The U.K. is better off for winning World War II. America is better off for winning World War II. And the world would be much worse off if the Nazis had won World War II. This is not complicated.”

The Carlson-Rees-Mogg interview, released Friday, was originally framed largely around Britain’s approach to Russia and the war in Ukraine. But the discussion expanded into an extended debate about Britain’s role in World War II, including whether Hitler actually intended to wage war against Britain.

“Hitler did not want to go to war with the U.K.,” Carlson said, later stressing that Hitler had “repeatedly” said publicly and through diplomatic channels that he did not want war with Britain.

Rees-Mogg challenged Carlson’s reliance on Hitler’s stated intentions, pointing to the Nazi leader’s record of violating agreements and breaking promises as Germany expanded across Europe.

“You seem to be putting more trust in Hitler than I would,” he told Carlson, pointing to Hitler’s broken agreements and adding, “I’m very surprised you’re verging on defending Hitler.”

“Yeah, I guess I’m just a secret Nazi,” Carlson responded. “I’m actually not a secret Nazi.”

“I’m reassured,” Rees-Mogg dryly replied.

“And hardly a public Nazi,” Carlson added.

Cruz seized on that portion of the interview, describing Carlson as “blazingly naive and willfully naive” in his approach to dictators and authoritarian governments.

“We’re now less than a month away from Election Day, and Tucker Carlson decided, what do you want to do right before Election Day?” Cruz asked rhetorically.

Cruz then delivered his most blistering attack of the podcast, tying the World War II controversy to his longstanding disputes with Carlson over President Trump, Israel, antisemitism and foreign policy.

“I know, become a full-on Nazi. Embrace Adolf Hitler, defend the Nazis, argue America should have been standing with the Nazis. You know, poor Adolf was just misunderstood. We’re going to come with the receipts of even for Tucker, long after he’s gone down the road of hating Donald Trump, long after he’s gone down the road of hating Israel and Jews, long after he’s gone down the road of hating Christian Zionists, and becoming a full-on jihadist, long after he has embraced Abdul El-Sayed, Tucker decided, you know, I don’t have enough Nazi love on my show, and this past week he sought to correct that. You can hear and judge for yourself.”

The episode marked another escalation in an increasingly bitter feud between two highly influential figures on the American right. Cruz has become one of Carlson’s most vocal conservative critics, particularly over Carlson’s treatment of Israel, Jews and figures accused of promoting antisemitism.

The dispute intensified after Carlson interviewed Nick Fuentes last year. Cruz subsequently called Carlson “the single-most dangerous demagogue in this country” and warned about what he sees as the increasing acceptance of antisemitism within portions of the political right.

Cruz’s latest criticism was not limited to Carlson’s discussion of Hitler. He also targeted Carlson over another exchange with Rees-Mogg concerning the relative economic strength of Russia and Britain.

Carlson asserted that Russia has a “much larger economy” than Britain, pointing to the country’s natural resources, manufacturing capacity and size.

Rees-Mogg challenged him, noting that Russia’s nominal gross domestic product is smaller than that of the United Kingdom despite Russia possessing a substantially larger population and enormous natural resources. Carlson countered that GDP was not the only measure of a country’s economic strength and pointed instead to Russia’s underlying resources and industrial capacity.

“Tucker has an ideological mission,” Cruz charged. “It is a mission to tear down America, to tear down free enterprise, to tear down the Constitution.”

Cruz went further, accusing Carlson’s rhetoric of working to “build up the Nazis” as well as Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The two conservatives have also diverged sharply over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Carlson has repeatedly questioned Washington’s support for Kyiv and argued that U.S. leaders exaggerate the threat posed by Moscow, while Cruz has taken a far more hawkish approach toward Russia.

Another portion of Carlson’s interview focused on Britain’s treatment during World War II of Oswald Mosley, the leader of the British Union of Fascists, who was detained by the British government along with hundreds of other suspected fascist sympathizers under wartime emergency regulations.

Cruz interpreted Carlson’s criticism of those actions as another example of the same pattern he saw throughout the interview.

“Tucker is all in on defending the Nazis against the West.”

The uproar over Carlson’s interview has extended beyond Cruz. Rees-Mogg subsequently said he could not understand Carlson’s increasingly extreme positions and suggested that the incentives of online media and the pursuit of audience engagement could be contributing to Carlson’s provocative rhetoric.

Poland’s government has also entered the controversy after Carlson discussed Hitler’s grievances against Poland and questioned the circumstances that led Britain to declare war on Germany following the Nazi invasion of Poland in September 1939. Bogdan Klich, Poland’s top diplomat in Washington, demanded that Carlson retract his remarks and apologize, accusing him of becoming “an apologist for Adolf Hitler.”

Cruz ended his discussion by describing Carlson’s rhetoric as “profoundly dangerous” and telling listeners that they did not need to rely on his characterization of Carlson’s views because the underlying interview was available for them to hear themselves.

“You don’t have to take my word for it,” Cruz said, “because you can listen in his own words as we played today.”

{Matzav.com}

Poland’s top diplomat in Washington has demanded that Tucker Carlson publicly retract and apologize for his remarks about Nazi Germany’s 1939 invasion of Poland, accusing the prominent commentator of advancing a false version of history and becoming “an apologist for Adolf Hitler.”

Bogdan Klich, chargé d’affaires at the Polish Embassy in Washington, issued the extraordinary rebuke after Carlson questioned Britain’s decision to enter World War II and argued during an interview with former British Cabinet minister Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg that Adolf Hitler had legitimate grievances against Poland over German territory lost following World War I.

Klich said Carlson’s portrayal of the events leading to World War II was “false and deeply troubling,” describing his treatment of Hitler’s invasion as a “colossal insult” to the millions of victims of Nazism, including American servicemen killed or wounded in the fight to liberate Europe.

“Nazi propaganda cannot be rehabilitated under the guise of free speech,” Klich wrote, demanding an immediate public retraction and apology.

The clash erupted following Carlson’s lengthy conversation with Rees-Mogg, during which Carlson challenged the conventional understanding of Britain’s entry into World War II and questioned whether the United Kingdom ultimately benefited from fighting Nazi Germany.

Carlson argued that Germany had lost territory populated by Germans to Poland following World War I and disputed the characterization of Hitler’s Sept. 1, 1939, invasion as an unprovoked act of aggression. Rees-Mogg repeatedly pushed back, at one point accusing Carlson of “verging on defending Hitler.”

Carlson also questioned why Britain had declared war on Germany when Hitler had publicly claimed that he did not intend to attack Britain. Britain and France declared war on Germany on Sept. 3, 1939, two days after German forces invaded Poland.

Polish officials responded that Hitler’s assurances about his territorial ambitions cannot be separated from his repeated pattern of making commitments and subsequently violating them.

At Munich in September 1938, Britain and France agreed to Germany’s annexation of the predominantly German-speaking Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia after Hitler pledged that the territorial settlement would satisfy Germany’s demands and that future disputes would be handled peacefully.

Within six months, Hitler violated that understanding. German forces entered the Czech lands in March 1939, dismantling what remained of Czechoslovakia and placing Bohemia and Moravia under German occupation.

Germany had similarly signed a nonaggression pact with Poland in 1934, ostensibly committing the two countries to resolve disputes without military force. Hitler renounced the agreement in April 1939, and Germany invaded Poland just over four months later.

The invasion was also preceded by the secret Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Nazi Germany and Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union. Under a secret protocol attached to the agreement, the two totalitarian powers divided Poland and other parts of Eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence.

Germany attacked Poland from the west on Sept. 1, while Soviet forces invaded from the east on Sept. 17. Poland was subsequently partitioned between the two regimes.

While Germany’s public demands before the war centered heavily on the Free City of Danzig and transportation access across the Polish Corridor, diplomatic records from the period indicate that Hitler’s demands expanded as the crisis intensified.

A U.S. diplomatic report produced shortly before the invasion described Hitler as demanding Danzig, the Corridor and Polish provinces including Pomerania and Silesia while threatening to “crush Poland.”

Klich said Carlson’s presentation ignored the broader historical record of Nazi Germany’s plans for Poland and Europe. He argued that the Sept. 1 invasion was a deliberately planned war of aggression intended to destroy the Polish state and ultimately facilitate further German conquest.

Poland suffered catastrophic losses under Nazi occupation. Approximately six million Polish citizens were killed during World War II, roughly half of them Jews murdered as part of the Holocaust. Poland was also the site of Nazi extermination camps where millions of Jews from across Europe were murdered.

Rees-Mogg continued challenging Carlson throughout their exchange, rejecting Carlson’s contention that Britain’s decision to confront Nazi Germany had been a mistake.

Following the interview, Rees-Mogg suggested that Carlson’s increasingly provocative positions could be influenced in part by the incentives of the online media environment and the audiences generated by controversial material.

The controversy also drew a sharp response from Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who has become one of Carlson’s most outspoken Republican critics.

“Yes, Tucker, the UK is better off for winning WWII,” Cruz wrote. “America is better off for winning World War II. And the world would be much worse off if the Nazis had won WWII. This is not complicated.”

Cruz has previously called Carlson “the single-most dangerous demagogue in this country” while warning about the growth of antisemitism on the political right.

The Texas senator has been particularly critical of Carlson’s decision to conduct a friendly interview with Nick Fuentes, who has openly expressed antisemitic views and praised Hitler. Cruz has accused Carlson and others in his orbit of attempting to move parts of the conservative movement toward hostility to Israel and greater tolerance of antisemitism.

Carlson, meanwhile, has become increasingly outspoken in his opposition to U.S. support for Israel and has repeatedly clashed with prominent Republicans and pro-Israel conservatives over the issue. His critics have accused him of amplifying antisemitic figures and conspiracy theories, accusations Carlson and his supporters have pushed back against.

In February, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee challenged Carlson directly over several of his claims during a contentious interview between the two men.

For Polish officials, however, the latest confrontation is centered squarely on World War II and what they view as an attempt to rewrite the circumstances surrounding the Nazi invasion that devastated their country.

“History must not be distorted,” Klich wrote. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

{Matzav.com}