More stories

  • in

    Once again, Netanyahu has outplayed Trump | Mohamad Bazzi

    As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump claimed he would quickly end the war in Gaza. Eight months after taking office, Trump finally decided to exert some US pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, announcing a 20-point peace plan at the White House on Monday.But the deal that the US president struck with Netanyahu – after Trump dithered for months, allowing Israel to continue its genocidal war with US weapons and unwavering political support – is less a ceasefire proposal than an ultimatum for Hamas to surrender.After nearly two years of prolonging the war and obstructing ceasefire negotiations, Netanyahu got almost everything he wanted, thanks to Trump. The US plan calls on Hamas to lay down its weapons and release the Israeli hostages remaining in Gaza, but it allows Israeli troops to occupy parts of Gaza for the foreseeable future. It’s close to the “total victory” over Hamas that Netanyahu has consistently promised the Israeli public, but failed to deliver on the battlefield.What if Hamas rejects this deal that was drafted without its input, or that of any other Palestinian faction? Trump made clear he would enable Netanyahu to sow even more death and destruction in Gaza. “Israel would have my full backing to finish the job of destroying the threat of Hamas,” he said at the White House. On Tuesday, Trump added he would give Hamas officials “three or four days” to respond – and warned that the group would “pay in hell” if it turns down the agreement. In past negotiations, Hamas had rejected Israeli proposals that forced the group to disarm and pushed it out of any future role governing Gaza.Once again, Netanyahu has outplayed Trump, who considers himself a master deal-maker. But he’s been regularly outmaneuvered by strongmen like Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin.When Trump took office in January, he had the upper hand over the Israeli leader, having pushed Netanyahu to agree to a ceasefire in Gaza that went into effect a day before the president’s inauguration on 20 January. But Netanyahu, who worried that his rightwing government would collapse if he agreed to a permanent truce with Hamas, imposed a new siege on Gaza in early March. With Trump’s blessing, Israel deprived Palestinians of food, medicine and other necessities. Netanyahu then refused to continue negotiations with Hamas, and broke the ceasefire after two months.Thanks to his unwavering support of Netanyahu, Trump has made the US more deeply complicit in Israel’s war crimes. Since Netanyahu resumed the war in March, civilians made up about 15 of every 16 people that the Israeli military has killed in Gaza, according to the independent violence-tracking group Acled. Israel has also pursued a more severe starvation campaign and instigated a famine in northern Gaza. (In August, the Guardian reported that a classified database maintained by the Israeli military showed that 83% of Palestinians killed in Gaza, between the outbreak of war in October 2023 and May of this year, were civilians.)Along the way, Netanyahu has exploited Trump’s desire for flattery, allowing the Israeli premier to not to draw out the war on Gaza but also to conduct attacks on other countries in the Middle East, including Iran, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen. Starting with billions of dollars in US weapons provided by Joe Biden’s administration and continuing under Trump, Israel has been able to bomb virtually anywhere in the region, with impunity. In June, Israel launched a surprise attack against Iran, killing dozens of top military officials and nuclear scientists. Netanyahu then convinced Trump to briefly join Israel’s war, when he ordered US planes to bomb three major nuclear facilities in Iran.Two weeks later, in early July, the Israeli premier showed up for dinner at the White House. Trump was eager to build on the momentum of a ceasefire he brokered between Iran and Israel, and was planning to cajole Netanyahu into making a deal with Hamas in Gaza. But Netanyahu avoided being publicly pressured by Trump to end the Gaza war, as Trump had done weeks earlier with the Iran ceasefire. Instead, Netanyahu stroked Trump’s ego by revealing that he had nominated the US president for the Nobel peace prize.Netanyahu managed to both flatter Trump and tap into his sense of grievance over being denied the world’s top peacemaking award. Trump has insisted for years that he deserves the Nobel prize for orchestrating a series of diplomatic agreements between Israel and several Arab countries during his first term. These so-called Abraham Accords were brokered in 2020 by Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser at the time, and they included the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco. But Trump couldn’t entice Saudi Arabia, the most important Arab state, and its crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, to reach a normalization deal with Israel.Like Trump’s current peace plan for Gaza, the Abraham Accords were negotiated directly with Israel and autocratic Arab regimes – and they excluded Palestinians from any discussion of their future or aspirations. These are deals conceived by real estate tycoons like Trump, Kushner and Steve Witkoff, who has served as Middle East envoy and one of Trump’s top diplomats in his second term. Trump and Kushner have always viewed Gaza through the prism of a real estate project, where Palestinians are holdouts refusing to cave into pressure to make way for the renovation of prime beachfront property along the Mediterranean Sea.In one of the few positive developments for Gazans, Trump dropped his widely-derided idea, which he floated during a meeting with Netanyahu in February, for the US to take over Gaza and turn it into a “Riviera of the Middle East”, in effect endorsing the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.But on Monday, as Trump announced his latest plan, which would establish a temporary governing board for Gaza that he himself would chair, he couldn’t resist ad-libbing a digression about the perceived value of the territory’s waterfront. “As a real estate person, I mean, they gave up the ocean,” Trump said, referring to the Israeli government’s decision in 2005 to withdraw troops occupying Gaza, along with about 8,000 Israeli settlers. He added: “They gave up the ocean. I said: ‘Who would do this deal?’”In reality, even after its withdrawal, Israel maintained control over Gaza’s airspace, borders and shoreline. In 2007, after Hamas took military control of Gaza following its victory in Palestinian legislative elections, Israel imposed a blockade on the territory that continues until today. Israel gave up the beach, but it still controlled the sea.In the days leading up to Monday’s announcement at the White House, Kushner and Witkoff spent hours meeting with Netanyahu, who was able to make last-minute changes to Trump’s plan, including the scope and timing of Israeli troop withdrawals from Gaza. As he has for the past two years, the Israeli prime minister managed to impose his will on a US administration that should have far more leverage over him than the other way around. And that means Netanyahu may well doom Trump’s latest peace deal.

    Mohamad Bazzi is director of the Hagop Kevorkian Center for Near Eastern Studies, and a journalism professor, at New York University More

  • in

    Trump’s peace plan is everything Israelis dreamed of. But it’s a fantasy | Roy Schwartz

    It didn’t take long before the Gospel of Donald became a message that everyone in Israel could embrace. The 20-point plan to end the ongoing war in Gaza, presented on Monday by the US president, is everything the Israelis had dreamed of – even fantasised about. The hostages will finally return, some to their families, others to their graves. Hamas will be gone, at least as a ruling organisation, and the soldiers will come home. The “peace plan” will, supposedly, mean a return to normality.A brief read-through of the one-page plan might suggest that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his people were involved in phrasing it. At times, it reads more like a list of Israeli demands than diplomatic compromises. Perhaps that’s why Netanyahu gave it his blessing rather quickly, which seemed to all but seal the deal. Even then, worth mentioning, his speech offered a slightly different version of the plan from the one in the written document – saying he didn’t agree to a Palestinian state or a full military withdrawal.Once you unwrap the package, remove the ribbons and the superlatives (“potentially one of the great days ever in civilisation”, as Trump put it), more than a few holes open up. The most obvious is the other side in the deal – Hamas, which has yet to approve it. This small detail seems to have been deemed almost irrelevant. Given Netanyahu’s record, one might wonder whether a Hamas refusal would actually be a convenient outcome for him. It would allow him to appear as someone who had genuinely attempted to end the war – while still retaining the full backing of the US to continue it. And since ending the bloodshed might also mean the collapse of his coalition, perhaps there are deeper political calculations at play.Another major question lies in the alternative response that Hamas might give: yes, but. In other words – support for a deal to end the war in principle, but with certain details requiring further negotiation. This would raise the question of how flexible Israel can be, given that Netanyahu’s government currently depends on far-right parties and that many of their members may view even the slightest compromise as grounds to dissolve the coalition (even the current plan has rattled them). At that point, it would become a test of how much pressure the US can realistically exert on Netanyahu – twisting his arm, if necessary. And if that fails, then what?Take section 17 of the plan, for instance. It states that even if Hamas rejects or delays the agreement, Israel will hand over “terror-free” areas to an international force. How exactly is that supposed to happen? How will such a force actually operate in a war zone? There are no answers to those questions.View image in fullscreenEven if we assume the original proposal goes through with assistance from Arab and Muslim countries, it won’t be the end of the doubts – only the beginning. Many of the uncertainties concern the so-called day after. The plan promises full humanitarian aid to Gaza, including the rehabilitation of infrastructure (water, electricity, sewage), hospitals, bakeries, and the entry of necessary equipment to remove rubble and reopen roads. However, the allocation of funds is missing. The document provides no detail on how much this will cost or, crucially, on who will provide this funding.The same applies to the proposed International Stabilisation Force (ISF). Which countries will send troops? How many? Who will have overarching authority over these forces? How will they coordinate with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)? Who will be in charge of ensuring Gaza doesn’t become a playground for various countries, each with their own interests and agendas? And, last but not least: who will give assurances to the people of Gaza that all of this is not just a new form of foreign occupation? These may seem like minor details, but they are essential – if not critical – to make the plan more than theoretical.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionYet the public conversation in Israel seems largely unbothered by such questions. This shouldn’t come as a surprise. Many Israelis have been indifferent to the catastrophe in Gaza since the war began – including the mass death and starvation of unarmed Palestinians. It makes sense that they would not concern themselves with how Gaza moves forward. More often than not, it seems that, for Israelis, what happens in Gaza stays in Gaza – with no consequences for the other side whatsoever.In a way, the proposed end to the war fits comfortably within that same mindset. There’s a widespread sense that if the plan goes ahead, Israel can simply return to the days before it all happened. Everything that took place in Gaza will be forgotten, except, of course, the 7 October 2023 massacre won’t be. There will no longer be a reason to protest against Israel globally, and certainly not to impose sanctions on Israeli officials, or call for exclusion from international sporting events or the Eurovision song contest.The fact that, for the foreseeable future, the Gaza Strip will remain a devastated area with barely any infrastructure may seem insignificant within Israel. Nor does it appear to matter that it will take the people of Gaza a long time to rebuild their homes and return to work – or to bury their loved ones and grieve. Not to mention that further horrors are likely to be uncovered if Gaza becomes safer and opens up to the foreign press. These issues are scarcely discussed. Like a history book returned to the library, it’s simply closed and filed away.

    Roy Schwartz is a senior editor and op-ed contributor at Haaretz

    Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

  • in

    ‘I think we’re headed to a shutdown,’ says JD Vance as Mike Johnson calls for more time for negotiations – live

    More reactions from Congressional leaders’ meeting with Trump on the government shutdown.House speaker Mike Johnson said he wants to allow more time for negotiations, Reuters reports.Meanwhile, vice-president JD Vance is blaming Democrats, saying Congress is heading towards a shutdown because Democrats “won’t do” the right thing, per Reuters.“I think we’re headed to a shutdown,” Vance said, Semafor reports.The impending shutdown will be different from past government closures because the Trump administration has threatened mass firings of federal staff, adding that it could use the lapse in funding to downsize the federal government, Reuters reports.The Office of Personnel Management in a Monday memo said while training and onboarding of new federal employees is not allowed under the law dictating the parameters of a shutdown, the employees who oversee any firings are to continue their work. Unlike in past shutdowns, furloughed federal employees will also be allowed to use their government-issued computers to check for layoff notices in their email, according to OPM.“This outrageous plan threatens to cause lasting damage to the country and the safety of the American people by mass firing nonpartisan, expert civil servants and potentially even eliminating government agencies,” Senator Gary Peters of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Senate committee that oversees shutdown operations, said in a letter to the administration.British prime minister Keir Starmer on Monday welcomed Donald Trump’s efforts to end the war in Gaza with a new plan, Reuters reports.“We call on all sides to come together and to work with the US administration to finalise this agreement and bring it into reality,” Starmer said. “Hamas should now agree to the plan and end the misery, by laying down their arms and releasing all remaining hostages.”Vice president JD Vance just argued that it was “preposterous” that Democrats were continuing to demand an extension of healthcare funding subsidies during negotiations over a looming government shutdown.“Now they come in here and say: ‘if you don’t give us everything we want we’re going to shut down the government.’ It’s preposterous,” Vance said after a White House meeting with Democratic congressional leaders, Semafor reported.But Vance himself previously campaigned on exactly this kind of “preposterous” negotiating tactic, Semafor’s congressional bureau chief noted.At today’s meeting on the government shutdown, Trump was more interested in negotiating than Republican leaders, PunchbowlNews reports:Meanwhile, this was Democratic leaders’ message to reporters:Democratic advocacy groups are not keen on the idea of a one-week continuing resolution to temporarily keep the government open for more negotiations, HuffPost reports:A group representing major US airlines warned on Monday that a partial federal government shutdown could strain American aviation and slow flights, as air traffic controllers and security officers would be forced to work without pay and other functions would be halted, Reuters reports.Airline trade group Airlines for America, which represents United Airlines, Delta Air Lines, American Airlines, Southwest Airlines and others, warned that if funding lapses “the system may need to slow down, reducing efficiency” and impacting travelers.Nicolás Maduro is ready to declare a state of emergency in the event of a US military attack on Venezuela, the country’s vice-president has said, warning of “catastrophic” consequences if such an onslaught materializes.Washington claims its attacks are part of an offensive against Latin American drug cartels who are smuggling cocaine and fentanyl into the US. But many suspect they could be a prelude to a broader military intervention designed to end Maduro’s 12-year rule.Read the full story here:More reactions from Congressional leaders’ meeting with Trump on the government shutdown.House speaker Mike Johnson said he wants to allow more time for negotiations, Reuters reports.Meanwhile, vice-president JD Vance is blaming Democrats, saying Congress is heading towards a shutdown because Democrats “won’t do” the right thing, per Reuters.“I think we’re headed to a shutdown,” Vance said, Semafor reports.The upshot of Schumer’s meeting with Trump over the government shutdown, the senate minority leaders said: “We have very large differences,” the Huffington Post reports.My colleague David Smith has a recap of Trump and Netanyahu’s peace proposal “press conference,” at which the leaders did not answer questions from the press:
    Donald Trump and the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu have delivered an ultimatum to Hamas, warning the militant group to accept their 20-point peace plan for Gaza or face the consequences.
    The two leaders met at the White House in Washington on Monday then held a joint press briefing in which they hailed their proposal as a historic breakthrough and new chapter for the Middle East.
    But it was clear that Hamas had not been consulted and its position on the terms remained uncertain.
    Both Trump and Netanyahu made clear that they were not offering Hamas a choice in the matter. If the group refused, Trump told reporters, “Israel would have my full backing to finish the job of destroying the threat of Hamas.
    Qatar’s prime minister and Egypt’s intelligence chief presented Trump’s proposal to Hamas negotiators, who are now reviewing it in “good faith,” according to a person familiar with the matter, the Associated Press reports. The person was not authorized to comment and spoke on the condition of anonymity.Two attorneys in the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) anti-discrimination division said they were fired on Monday, a week after going public with a whistleblower report alleging that the Trump administration had dismantled efforts to combat residential segregation, my colleague Chris Stein reports.As Trump heads to a meeting with Congressional leaders over the looming government shutdown, Axios has reported on one potential deal under discussion:How does Donald Trump’s peace plan for Gaza stands out from previous ceasefire proposals? For the first time, it tries to outline the key question of how the territory will be ruled after the war, the Associated Press explains:

    The proposal would effectively put the territory and its more than 2 million people under international control. It calls for deploying an international security force and installing a “Board of Peace” headed by Trump and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair to oversee Gaza’s administration and reconstruction.Hamas faces a bitter tradeoff — the proposal demands it effectively surrender in return for uncertain gains. The militant group would have to disarm in return for an end to fighting, humanitarian aid for Palestinians, and the promise of reconstruction in Gaza – all desperately hoped for by its population.But the proposal has only a vague promise that some day, perhaps, Palestinian statehood might be possible. For the foreseeable future, Gaza would stay under a sort of international tutelage and would remain surrounded by Israeli troops.
    Senate majority leader John Thune told reporters before heading to the White House that he believes “there will be multiple opportunities to vote on keeping the government open” if they can’t do so tomorrow.“I would expect additional opportunities,” he said. More

  • in

    They’ve finally gone there: South Park lets rip at Benjamin Netanyahu

    In the three weeks since South Park last aired, things have changed. The assassination of rightwing pundit Charlie Kirk exploded already fiery political tensions, with the Trump administration and its base embarking on a campaign of retribution the likes of which haven’t been seen since the McCarthy era, and stating, without sufficient evidence, that Kirk’s murder was the result of a wide-ranging leftist plot. Scores of people in the public and private sectors have been punished for commenting on the situation, most notably late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, whose show was briefly pulled off air after the chair of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, put parent company Disney under pressure to do so.Suffice to say, the situation is far too dire to worry about where a cartoon sitcom fits into it all, but South Park is a special case. The first episode of season 27 revolved around the politically motivated cancellation of Stephen Colbert, another late-night talkshow host critical of Donald Trump, while the second directly lampooned Kirk.Many on the right have declared South Park morally complicit in Kirk’s murder, despite the fact that Kirk himself celebrated the parody (going so far as to use its caricature of him as his X profile picture). Repeats of that episode were pulled from Comedy Central, although it remains available to stream on Paramount+. Then, a week to the day after Kirk’s death, it was announced that the new episode of South Park would be postponed. This sparked speculation of censorship, although showrunners Matt Stone and Trey Parker roundly denied this, claiming it was simply a matter of a blown deadline (the result of their famously tight schedule).View image in fullscreenWhile that seems like an all too convenient excuse, Parker and Stone have never backed down from controversy before. Then again, said controversy has never been this furious before, nor hit so close to home for them. The big question ahead of the newest episode was: what would South Park have to say about all this?The answer is … not much.The latest instalment, provocatively titled Conflict of Interest, makes no mention of Kirk, although it does tackle the aftermath in a roundabout way. In one of the two main storylines, Trump, upset over the impending birth of his unholy lovechild with Satan, sets a series of convoluted traps to force an abortion, only for Carr to continually wander into them. By the end of the episode, Carr, badly injured and hosting a brain parasite as a result of toxoplasmosis from being buried in a mountain of cat poo, is at risk of “losing his freedom of speech”.View image in fullscreenDespite avoiding one of the touchiest subjects of the day, South Park steered headlong into another, finally addressing the genocide in Palestine by way of prediction market apps. A bet on one of the platforms – “Will Kyle’s mom strike Gaza and destroy a Palestinian hospital?” – grows so large that Kyle’s mom ends up flying to Israel to put a stop to it.For most of the episode, the outrage is directed at all sides, with Kyle angrily yelling: “Jews and Palestinians are not football teams that you bet on”, and his mother proclaiming: “It’s not Jews versus Palestine, it’s Israel versus Palestine!”However, that outrage is ultimately aimed at a specific party, with Kyle’s mom barging into the office of the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and letting rip: “Just who do you think you are, killing thousands and flattening neighbourhoods, then wrapping yourself in Judaism like it’s some shield from criticism!” If Netanyahu’s comeuppance isn’t as scatologically extreme as Carr’s, it still provides a fleeting moment of catharsis.While not the most outrageous episode of the season, this may be the funniest, with the Looney Tunes-like gags and the prevalence of JD Vance’s impish caricature both earning huge laughs. And if this week’s South Park didn’t quite meet the moment head-on, neither did it back down. It’s good to know that it will continue to go after Trump and his cronies no matter how hot the political temperature grows.

    South Park is on Paramount+ More

  • in

    ‘The people stood up’: how war turned Iran towards ‘everyday nationalism’

    Amid the ruins of the building that was once the Tehran home of the Iranian nuclear scientist Ahmadreza Zolfaghari, workmen are underway demolishing the remains, damaged beyond repair by Israel’s surprise attempt to assassinate Iran’s political, military and nuclear elite.Zolfaghari had worked at the Faculty of Nuclear Engineering at Shahid Beheshti University, and was editor-in-chief of a nuclear energy journal, all of which was sufficient to make him an Israeli target. He was found dead in the rubble of his home, along with his wife and grownup son. The three adjoining buildings had also been blown apart, killing at least five others, including an 11-year-old child. A blue banner, draped down one of the damaged buildings, reads: “A piece of the body of Iran.”The group of workmen wielding sledgehammers are clambering across the remaining unstable floor struts to demolish what remains of the building. Loose masonry crashes to the ground, sending dust into the air. Their perilous task – the beams on which they stand creak as they hammer – seems a metaphor for a country still in shock, neither at peace nor at war, but in need of reconstruction.More than 1,000 Iranians died in the Israeli attack, and some professional sociologists – a broad term in Iran – argue a new nationalism has emerged into public view.View image in fullscreenThere is no doubt that, outwardly, Tehran is changing fast – and socially it is light years from western perceptions. The number of women not wearing the hijab in Tehran’s streets is about a third and it is not just young women, but sometimes whole families. A new punitive chastity law passed by the religious conservatives – still dominant inside parliament – was rejected by the consensual, but reformist president Masoud Pezeshkian on the pragmatic grounds that it would cause an uprising if it was enforced.The burial of the measure has emboldened women. The police, once keen to bundle the “unchaste” into the back of a van, now leave unscarfed women to their individual choice. The vibrant, albeit polluted, evening streets resemble Beirut as much as Kabul. The next step is to allow women to ride motorcycles. Observers say that Mahsa Amini, the young Kurdish woman who collapsed in a police station in 2022, sparking the “women life freedom” protests, did not entirely die in vain.The cultural sociologist and Soas alumni Nematollah Fazeli claims a deep change may be afoot. What he describes as the emergence of an “everyday nationalism” is reflected in a return to epic poetry, popular podcasts about Iranian history, and thousands of ordinary conversations across the country about Iranian identity.View image in fullscreenFazeli explained: “Before the war, we loved Iran, but it was not a very conscious feeling. After the war, it became a central point of our discourse. Everywhere in cities and villages you observe that people are talking about their nation, their identity, their geography and their history. We just want to remind one another we are Iranian. The sense of oppression of Iran, our nation, our land, our culture, our feelings, by a world system and by foreigners was very important. It led to a desire to be together and to express the commonality of being Iranian.”But he adds: “The Islamic Republic ideology is not a nationalist ideology. The official ideology of the revolution is not keen or interested to represent ancient Iranian culture, and that culture cannot be seen in official education, TV or radio. The people’s reaction to the war was a shock and a kind of negative cohesion. Despite their frustration with the government, the people stood up against foreign aggression; not to defend the Islamic Republic, but to defend Iran. We believe we have been an organic nation for more than 5,000 years.”Mohammad Faze, a teacher, described how his students had put the Iranian flag on their social media profiles. Others point to the flourishing of podcasts about Iranian history and the declarations of love for Iran by popular singers including previous regime critics such as Homayoun Shajarian.View image in fullscreenSome in government have acknowledged the challenge posed by this outpouring for the homeland. Abdolkarim Hosseinzadeh, the vice-president for rural affairs, told a gathering of journalists: “Iran is beautiful with all of us together, my closest friends are not Kurds, they are Persians, Turks, Kurds and Baloch. We have lived together, loved each other and cherished one another. We may not think alike, we may not share the same beliefs, but in Iran, there is no doubt about our friendship, patriotism and love for our homeland.”The issue under debate in Iran now is whether, and how, the government responds to the display of resilience shown by a population under fire, or what the foreign affairs spokesperson, Esmaeil Baghaee, described as the blitz spirit.The experience of war, even short wars, can change nations. Aliakbar Velayati, an adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, argued: “the people have proven themselves, and now it is the turn of the officials. Outdated methods will no longer suffice for a society after the war.”View image in fullscreenBut turning these generalities into reality in a deeply polarised and political society is proving hard. Even Shajarian’s plan to hold a mass free open air concert in Tehran’s Azadi Square this weekend collapsed as a political row broke out as to whether the event was an innocent moment of relief or propaganda.The conservatives believe the social cohesion inadvertently forged by Benjamin Netanyahu’s misconceived attempt at regime change from 30,000ft confirms the popularity of the supreme leader and its ideological foreign policy.But for many reformists, it would be a mistake to read this everyday patriotism as an endorsement for the Islamic Republic, or the status quo. One reformist said: “How can we be so complacent when the currency has fallen 25% in the past week, poverty is everywhere, the official media is a lie and no one knows if another war is around the corner?”The reformists indeed hope there could be a breakthrough; what the former foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, has described as a paradigm shift. In recent weeks, former prime minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who has been under house arrest for 15 years and is now in hospital, issued an open letter demanding a new constitution, while the Reform Front – an umbrella group of moderate and reformist figures – called for the government to take the stepthe US had been demanding and voluntarily suspend domestic enrichment of uranium, in return for the lifting of sanctions.The former two-term president Hassan Rouhani has also weighed in, advocating for a “national strategy based on the will of the people. This crisis must create an agenda to correct the course and rebuild the foundations of governance.”He called for the creation of a grassroots intelligence agency, giving scientists a platform and opportunity to modernise Iran’s defences, diversification of the media by launching more private television channels and ending Iran’s abrasive relationship with the world, including reducing the hostility towards the US.Beyond politicians, 180 economists urged a reordering of “Iran’s economic and political paradigms”, including the removal of the army from business, while 78 former diplomats pressed for a foreign policy that “does not allow delay” in taking the steps necessary to lift sanctions.‘Give diplomacy a chance’But there is still resistance to change. The power held by the Iranian security apparatus has led to a crackdown involving road checks and as many as 20,000 arrests, according to Amnesty International.The conservatives rushed to pass a draconian law giving the authorities power to block online content. The head of the judiciary, Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Eje’i, condemned the Reform Group’s statement criticising the move as “in line with the enemy’s wishes”, adding “it would be natural for the Tehran prosecutor to take an interest in such statements”, a remark designed to send a chill through the reformists.Faced by these perennial conflicting tides, Pezeshkian’s instinct is to avoid confrontation, sometimes to the frustration of the reformists thatgot him elected in a surprise result only a year ago. Pezeshkian is deeply aware of the limits of his power: that conservative forces are out to crush him, his dependence on the supreme leader and the ubiquity of a deep state protective of its privileges. The polarised tone of Iranian politics worries him as much as sanctions, he admitted last week.He has made consensus his watchword, so much so that Mohsen Asgari, the editor of the innovative multimedia outlet Haft Sobh, argues: “The risk is that he turns a method of government – the search for consensus – into an objective.”Fatemeh Mohajerani, a government spokesperson, educated at Heriott-Watt University, defends Pezeshkian’s commitment to persuasion and problem solving.Consensus building on complex social issues in a polarised society takes time, and separation of powers prevents him from calling for political prisoners to be released. She insists progress is underway, for instance to remove the filters placed on external social media sites such as Telegram, X and even Instagram. Only the intervention of the war prevented Telegram executives from visiting Iran to discuss the terms of their launch, she said. Asked if she thought the government needed to apologise for the deaths and injuries caused to women fighting for their freedom, she responded by saying the government will always apologise if necessary.Pezeshkian’s space to undertake the necessary economic reforms is restricted by the universal political anger caused by the 12-day war and now the threat of reimposed UN sanctions. For many Iranians, reformist or otherwise, the widespread view is that Europe is in effect endorsing Israel’s illegal bombing campaign by its move toward snapback sanctions.View image in fullscreenAnger that the US allowed or connived in the bombing while negotiations were underway, and Europe could not bring itself to condemn this, has left a deep distrust that plays into the hands of the anti-western factions.Reza Nasri, an international lawyer close to the reformist camp, said: “Before the war, there was concern that Trump might withdraw from any signed agreement, but now the worry is that he will bomb us. It is very difficult to make the case within domestic Iranian politics that negotiations are beneficial or will lead to a lifting of sanctions.“The perception is Trump has outsourced his Iran policy to Israel. People feel ‘we went to negotiate and we got bombs so why should we do that again?’ It would be so costly for any government to go back to negotiations. And if Europe wants that to happen, they have gone about it absolutely the wrong way. The most likely outcome of imposing snapback [sanctions] is that Iran will exclude Europe from all future negotiations altogether, and will exclude the UN weapons inspectors. The logical thing for Europe to do is to delay snapback and give diplomacy a chance.”Nasri added: “The issue of Iran’s right to enrich uranium domestically – supposedly the cause of the conflict – is not about building a bomb, deterrence or even about nuclear energy, it is all about retaining a symbol of dignity.”Speaking inside the courtyard of the Hemmat Tajrish mosque by the graves of some of those killed in the 12-day war, Mohammad Faze admits Iranian society has been living on the edge, but insists: “My nature is not to be 100% certain about anything, but if this war comes again we will be ready. We have learned from the 12-day war, and we are prepared. It is deep in the Iranian heart we will not surrender, and we will not be humiliated.” More

  • in

    Donald Trump could stop Gaza’s famine. Instead he’s following Biden’s lead | Mohamad Bazzi

    A global hunger-monitoring group declared last week that Gaza’s largest city and its surrounding area were suffering from an “entirely man-made” famine, mostly caused by Israel’s deliberate starvation strategy and continued siege of the territory. This news won’t surprise anyone who has paid even scant attention to the images and videos of emaciated children and desperate parents that have been coming out of Gaza for months.But the first confirmation of famine by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), which includes the World Food Programme, the World Health Organization and other aid agencies, is an important institutional marker. Years from now, it will serve as a reminder of how Israel used starvation as a weapon of war while western powers did nothing. And it will be a source of shame for all those who will inevitably claim that they didn’t realize the extent of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, despite dozens of Palestinian journalists being killed for conveying that reality to the world.Donald Trump can stop this famine – the US is Israel’s largest weapons supplier and most important political supporter. But he has chosen not to. Instead, Trump is backing the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, in his latest plan to sow more death and destruction by invading Gaza City and displacing 1 million Palestinians. Last month, the US president said children in Gaza “look very hungry”, adding that scenes of suffering showed “real starvation”. Trump contradicted the Israeli government’s spurious claim that warnings about impending famine were fake news.Yet the Trump administration stayed silent after the IPC issued its latest report last week, confirming that Gaza City and its environs are in the midst of a full-blown famine. In order to declare a famine, the IPC requires that an area must cross three critical thresholds: at least 20% of households face an extreme shortage of food; at least 30% of children suffer from acute malnutrition; and at least two adults or four children out of every 10,000 people die each day due to starvation, or disease and malnutrition. Since the IPC was founded in 2004 to warn of global food shortages, it had confirmed only three previous famines: in Somalia in 2011, South Sudan in 2017 and Sudan last year.By the time a famine is declared, it’s often too late to stop an exponential rise in deaths due to starvation and malnutrition. When a drought-driven famine hit Somalia between 2010 and 2012, about half of the 250,000 people killed had already died by the time the IPC found that the country had crossed famine thresholds.During past famines, the IPC’s declaration helped drive global attention and prompted international donors to rush aid to affected regions. But the world’s attention is already focused on Gaza, and the UN and other aid groups say they have enough food near Gaza’s borders to feed its entire population of 2.1 million for nearly three months. Israel simply refuses to allow much of that aid into the besieged territory – a deliberate starvation campaign supported by the Trump administration.As Tom Fletcher, the UN’s humanitarian aid chief, put it last week: “Food stacks up at borders because of systematic obstruction by Israel.” He added that the Gaza famine was “caused by cruelty, justified by revenge, enabled by indifference and sustained by complicity”. Fletcher then appealed to world leaders to pressure Netanyahu to lift the siege.That plea was ultimately intended for Trump, the only leader who can force Netanyahu to end Gaza’s suffering. But the Israeli prime minister and his government continue to defy global outrage, largely because they have Trump’s unwavering support.Since early 2024, the UN and international relief groups have been sounding alarms about the potential for widespread starvation in Gaza because of the Israeli military blockade that started within days of the October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. As I wrote recently, Joe Biden ignored these warnings while his administration tried to undermine criticism of its unconditional weapons shipments to Israel. Throughout 2024, when parts of Gaza reached the brink of starvation, Israel would ease its siege allowing some food and supplies to reach desperate Palestinians – and averting a descent into full-blow famine.But Netanyahu abandoned that strategy in early March, when he imposed a new siege on Gaza, with Trump’s tacit approval, depriving Palestinians of food, medicine and other basic needs. Netanyahu, who worried that his extremist government coalition would collapse if he agreed to a permanent truce with Hamas, quickly resumed Israel’s war, breaking a ceasefire that was in place for two months. Since then, Israel has inflicted a more severe siege and starvation campaign on Gaza.On 18 August, Hamas announced that it had accepted a ceasefire deal that is virtually identical to one that Israel and the US had proposed a few weeks earlier. But as he has done for nearly two years, Netanyahu is dragging his feet and making new demands to obstruct negotiations and torpedo any potential deal. Ultimately, Netanyahu wants to prolong the war and stay in power.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIt seems Trump has been seduced by Netanyahu’s promise of a decisive victory with his latest plan to conquer Gaza City and other parts of the territory that are not yet occupied by the Israeli military. Speaking to reporters at the White House on Monday, Trump said the Gaza war would reach “a conclusive ending” in the next two or three weeks.Netanyahu has been promising – and failing to deliver – a “total victory” over Hamas for more than a year. “Total victory over Hamas will not take years,” he said confidently in a speech in February 2024. “It will take months.” Since then, Netanyahu expressed lofty ambitions to reshape the entire Middle East, but he continued to defy international and domestic pressure to specify Israel’s postwar plans for Gaza or how the war could end short of his amorphous goal of “total victory”. And that was a deliberate tactic: from the beginning, Netanyahu’s allies wanted a protracted war that would end with Israel occupying Gaza and ethnically cleansing its Palestinian inhabitants.Last week, a top Biden administration official confirmed in an interview aired by an Israeli TV channel that, soon after the October 2023 Hamas attack, Netanyahu was preparing for a grinding guerrilla war in Gaza which could last “for decades”. Matthew Miller, the former state department spokesperson who often defended the administration’s unconditional support for Israel, also said that Netanyahu had repeatedly sabotaged US-brokered ceasefire negotiations. (An Israeli TV report found the prime minister nixed deals or near-agreements seven times.) But the Biden administration consistently blamed Hamas for refusing to accept a ceasefire, and rarely called out Netanyahu for his obstinacy, thinking it would harden Hamas’s position.For 15 months, Biden provided the Israeli premier with political cover and billions of dollars in US arms, becoming more deeply complicit in Israel’s use of starvation as a weapon and other war crimes. Today, Trump is repeating the same ineffective and immoral strategy, enticed by Netanyahu’s empty promise of victory while famine spreads in Gaza.

    Mohamad Bazzi is director of the Hagop Kevorkian Center for Near Eastern Studies, and a journalism professor, at New York University More

  • in

    Trump backs Israel and rebukes Starmer over Palestinian state recognition

    Donald Trump has doubled down on his backing for Israel after having appeared to give a green light to the British prime minister, Keir Starmer, to recognize a Palestinian state.Amid signs of mounting opposition among his Maga base to Israel’s military operation in Gaza, Trump criticized Starmer’s plan to grant recognition as “rewarding Hamas” even after having not taken issue with it when the pair met in Scotland this week.Talking to journalists onboard Air Force One on his return to Washington, Trump said the US was “not in that camp”, referring to Starmer’s pledge, which followed a similar declaration by Emmanuel Macron, the French president, days earlier that France would formally recognize Palestinian statehood.“We never did discuss it,” Trump said, in reference to Starmer’s announcement. He added: “You’re rewarding Hamas if you do that. I don’t think they should be rewarded.”His comments were in line with the US state department, whose spokesperson, Tammy Bruce, called the recognition decision “a slap in the face” to victims of Hamas’s deadly 7 October 2023 attack on Israel, which triggered the current war.But they contrasted with his restrained stance when he and Starmer met at Turnberry in Scotland on Monday, after the UK prime minister said Britain would give recognition by September unless Israel met certain conditions, including allowing for a ceasefire in Gaza and allowing UN food aid to enter the territory to feed its population.“I’m not going to take a position, I don’t mind him taking a position,” Trump told reporters when asked if he objected to Starmer’s move.The US president’s response to Starmer seemed markedly softer than his riposte after Macron’s statehood announcement last week, which angered Israel and its supporters.“What he says doesn’t matter,” Trump told reporters at the White House. “He’s a very good guy. I like him, but that statement doesn’t carry weight.”The initial softer public posture toward Starmer came as Trump publicly contradicted Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, over conditions in Gaza, which numerous international aid agencies have described as famine.Netanyahu had said that, in contrast to the aid group assessments and searing images of hungry children, no one was starving in Gaza.Asked if he agreed, Trump said: “Based on television, I would say ‘not particularly’, because those children look pretty hungry to me. There’s real starvation, you can’t fake that.”Some of Trump’s most prominent supporters have become increasingly vocal in their criticism of Israel’s conduct, amid polling evidence that Americans generally are losing sympathy for a country that has traditionally been viewed as one of the US’s closest allies.Steve Bannon, Trump’s former adviser and still one of his leading cheerleaders with his War Room podcast, told Politico that the president’s condemnation of the food situation in Gaza would hasten Israel’s loss of support among his base.“It seems that for the under-30-year-old Maga base, Israel has almost no support, and Netanyahu’s attempt to save himself politically by dragging America in deeper to another Middle East war has turned off a large swath of older Maga diehards,” Bannon said. “Now President Trump’s public repudiation of one of the central tenets of [Netanyahu’s] Gaza strategy – ‘starving’ Palestinians – will only hasten a collapse of support.”Another Trump supporter, the far-right Georgia representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, became the latest – and perhaps most surprising – public figure to label Israel’s actions in Gaza “genocide”.“It’s the most truthful and easiest thing to say that Oct 7th in Israel was horrific and all hostages must be returned, but so is the genocide, humanitarian crisis, and starvation happening in Gaza,” she posted on X.The comments came as a new Gallup poll showed support among Americans for Israel’s actions in Gaza down to 32%, the lowest since the organization began asking the question in November 2023 – a month after the murderous Hamas raid that killed almost 1,200 mostly Israeli civilians and led to another 250 to be taken hostage.Israel’s military response has led to about 60,000 Palestinians being killed, according to the Gaza health ministry.While Gallup’s poll showed support for Israel’s offensive still high, at 71%, among Republicans, Thom Tillis, a GOP senator for North Carolina who plans to step down at the next election, said Gaza could be a political problem for Trump, the Hill reported.“I think that the American people at the end of the day are a kind people. They don’t like seeing suffering, nor do I think the president does,” Tillis said. “If you see starvation, you try to fix it.”Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador to Israel, told Fox News that Trump’s backing for Netanyahu remained unshaken. “Let me assure you that there is no break between the prime minister of Israel and the president,” he told Fox News. “Their relationship, I think, [is] stronger than it’s ever been, and I think the relationship between the US and Israel is as strong as it’s ever been.”Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff is due to visit Israel on Thursday, where he will meet with officials “to discuss next steps in addressing the situation in Gaza”, a US official told AFP. More

  • in

    Netanyahu flies home without a Gaza peace deal but still keeps Trump onside

    Benjamin Netanyahu arrived back in Israel on Friday without a ceasefire in the Gaza war despite heady predictions from US and Israeli officials that this week could provide a breakthrough in negotiations. But he did not come home completely empty-handed.The Israeli PM’s visit was his third since Donald Trump’s inauguration, with several high-profile meetings at the White House, a nomination for Trump to receive the Nobel peace prize, and suggestions from Trump and the special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, that peace could be achieved in a week.But as Netanyahu’s trip ended, no clear results had been achieved. Witkoff postponed a trip to Doha on Tuesday as it became clear that the negotiations had not reached a point where they could produce a ceasefire agreement.While Netanyahu repeated a refrain that a ceasefire could be announced within days, a deal to bring peace to more than 2 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip remained elusive.“I hope we can complete it in a few days,” Netanyahu said during an appearance on Newsmax, a conservative, pro-Trump news network on Wednesday. “We’ll probably have a 60-day ceasefire. Get the first batch [of hostages] out and then use the 60 days to try to negotiate an end to this.”By Thursday, when he attended a memorial service for two Israeli embassy staff killed in Washington, Netanyahu said Israel would not compromise on its demands for Hamas to disband. “I am promoting a move that will result in a significant liberation, but only on the conditions Israel demands: Hamas disarm, Gaza demilitarise,” he said. “If it is not achieved through diplomacy, it will be achieved by force.”Several officials suggested during the week that only a single sticking point remained between negotiators in Doha: the extent of a withdrawal by the Israel Defense Forces that would follow the release of some of the hostages being held by Hamas. The White House had pushed back against an initial map that would have left Israel with significant zones of control in Gaza, which Witkoff had compared to a “Smotrich plan”, referring to the hardline Israeli finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich. Israel reportedly redrew that map to make it more palatable to the US administration.But Hamas has said there were other disagreements, including negotiations over whether the Gaza Humanitarian Fund, an Israeli and US-backed logistics group, would be allowed to continue to deliver food to the territory (the UN said on Friday that 798 people had been killed trying to reach GHF sites since its introduction in May) and whether Israel would agree to a permanent truce, which it has said it would not. US mediators sought to bridge the gap by telling Qatari intermediaries they would guarantee the ceasefire’s continuation after 60 days as negotiations continued.The upshot is that while Netanyahu leaves the US without a ceasefire, he has managed his relationship with Trump through high-profile assurances that he is seeking a peace in Gaza, while maintaining a status quo that members of his rightwing coalition, including the ministers Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, have said is preferable to a peace deal.For Netanyahu, the trip produced images that reinforced Israeli claims there was “no daylight” between him and Trump, and came as the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, announced a decision to impose sanctions on Francesca Albanese, a UN expert on the occupied Palestinian territories, for urging the international criminal court to investigate Israeli officials and US companies over the Gaza war.Trump’s frustrations with Netanyahu appeared to be boiling over a month ago as the US president sought to negotiate a truce between Iran and Israel, which had been trading airstrikes and missile barrages as Israel sought to dismantle the Iranian nuclear programme.“I’m not happy with Israel,” he said on the White House lawn. “We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing.”That recalled remarks by Robert Gates, a former US secretary of defence, about successive White House administrations’ difficulties in managing an ally in the region that also had considerable political influence in the US.“Every president I worked for, at some point in his presidency, would get so pissed off at the Israelis that he couldn’t speak,” Gates said.But a full breach with the US would have been disastrous for Netanyahu, who is managing his own difficult coalition and has been targeted in a graft investigation at home that was again delayed as a result of his international travel. And, after joint strikes against Iran, the Israeli PM was keen to show that the two men were in lockstep, while giving the Trump administration an opportunity to show it was working toward a Gaza peace.Elliott Abrams, the senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, said the Trump administration had sought, as it did during the first short-lived ceasefire, to bring “pressure to bear on Israel directly” through discussions with Netanyahu and his chief lieutenant, Ron Dermer, and “trying to bring pressure on Hamas mostly through the Qataris, when there are these talks in Doha”.He added: “Whether that pressure is effective is unclear.” More