Benjamin Netanyahu

Subterms

    More stories

    • 263 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      From Germany to Israel, it’s ‘the will of the people’ v the rule of law. Which will win? | Paul Taylor

      by

      The will of the people expressed in free elections and the rule of law upheld by independent courts are two of the pillars of a liberal democracy, or so we were taught at school. Yet these two core principles keep colliding in increasingly polarised societies from Washington to London, Paris to Berlin and Warsaw to Jerusalem, with populist politicians demanding that “the will of the people” override the constitution, treaties or the separation of powers.It is vital for the long-term health of democracy that the judges prevail. If politicians are able to break or bend fundamental legal principles to suit the mood of the moment, the future of freedom and human rights is in danger.In the United States, the supreme court will soon rule on whether Donald Trump should be allowed to run again for president after having encouraged and condoned the storming of the Capitol by his supporters on 6 January 2021 in a violent attempt to prevent Congress certifying the election of Joe Biden as his successor. Two states, Colorado and Maine, have barred him from the ballot.The 14th amendment of the constitution, adopted right after the civil war, states that no person shall “hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath (…) to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”.If the court applies the constitution literally, it’s hard to see how it can let Trump stand in November’s election, even though he may not be found guilty by a court over the insurrection. However, to deny the runaway favourite for the Republican nomination a chance to regain the White House would ignite a firestorm of outrage among his supporters, and perhaps a wider sense of a denial of democracy.Even some Trump-haters contend that it would be wiser for him to be defeated in an election than prevented by judges from running for office. The fact that the supreme court is dominated by conservative justices appointed by Trump and his Republican predecessors might not be enough to convince millions of Americans that they were robbed of a free vote.The same kind of issue has arisen repeatedly in the UK, where the high court ruled in 2016 that even after the Brexit referendum, the government still required the assent of parliament to give notice of Britain’s intention to leave the European Union. The Daily Mail infamously branded those judges “enemies of the people”. In 2019, the supreme court overruled Boris Johnson’s proroguing of parliament, and more recently it ruled unanimously that Rwanda was not a safe country to send people seeking asylum in Britain. Each time, populist politicians denounced what they call “rule by judges” and vowed to find ways to limit their powers.Of course, it is politically inconvenient when judges tell a government, or a parliament, that it is acting illegally or unconstitutionally, but it is an essential safeguard of our democracy that those rulings be respected and implemented faithfully.While Britain lacks a written constitution and is governed by a mixture of laws and informal conventions, its courts are bound to uphold the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the UK is a founding signatory, and the jurisprudence of the European court of human rights that derives from it.View image in fullscreenIn France, the constitutional council last week struck down substantial parts of an immigration law passed by parliament last month. Les sages (the wise persons) annulled more than a third of the measures, including provisions that would have obliged parliament to set annual immigration quotas, discriminated between French nationals and foreigners, and between working and non-working foreigners in entitlement to welfare benefits, and denied automatic citizenship to French-born children of foreign nationals.Emmanuel Macron had referred the law to the council as soon as the conservative opposition forced his minority government to accept a severe toughening of its original bill, drawing charges of hypocrisy since his party voted for the legislation knowing that parts of it were likely to be ruled unconstitutional.As expected, the council’s ruling was denounced as a “legal coup” against the will of parliament and the people by mainstream conservative Republicans and Marine Le Pen’s hard-right National Rally, who demanded that the constitution be changed to permit a referendum on immigration quotas. But amending the constitution is a lengthy process that requires both houses of parliament to adopt identical wording and then a three-fifths majority at a special congress of both houses. Don’t hold your breath.In Germany, the federal constitutional court ruled last year that the government’s attempt to divert money left over in an off-budget special fund for Covid-19 recovery for investment in the country’s green energy transition was unconstitutional. The ruling has left the chancellor, Olaf Scholz, with a massive hole in his budget that the government is struggling to fill.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe court decision has prompted the beginnings of a sensible debate on amending a constitutional debt brake enacted during the global financial crisis in 2009, which severely restricts budget deficits except in times of emergency. At least no one in Germany has branded the justices “enemies of the people” or demanded their heads on pikes.In Israel, an attempt by Benjamin Netanyahu’s hard-right government to curb the independent supreme court’s right to interpret quasi-constitutional basic laws to overrule government decisions and appointments and to reject legislation passed by the single-chamber parliament caused months of civil unrest last year.Netanyahu, who is on trial on corruption charges and seeks to exert political control over judicial appointments, argued that the will of the people should prevail over an unelected judiciary. Far-right members of his government contend that Jewish religious law should trump the basic law anyway. The supreme court this month overturned a law that would have prevented it using the principle of “reasonableness” to quash government decisions.In Poland, a democratically elected nationalist government defied the EU to dismantle the independence of the judiciary by packing the constitutional court and prosecutors’ offices with loyalists and creating a politically controlled body to discipline judges for their rulings. Now a pro-European government is trying to reverse the damage wrought by its predecessors, but faces accusations of violating the rule of law itself by ignoring the packed court’s rulings.The common thread in all these different situations is that in a democracy, the will of the people is not and should not be absolute and unconstrained by law. Perdition that way lies.
      Paul Taylor is a senior fellow of the Friends of Europe thinktank

      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

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      US should ‘reset relationship of unconditional support’ for Israel, progressives say

      by

      Leading progressive and Jewish members of Congress have criticized the US’s “unconditional support” for Israel after Benjamin Netanyahu declared bluntly that he was opposed to a Palestinian state after the war in Gaza and directly rejected American policy.The Israeli prime minister declared on Thursday that Israel would forever maintain control over all land west of the River Jordan, making an independent Palestinian state there impossible. “This is a necessary condition, and it conflicts with the idea of [Palestinian] sovereignty,” Netanyahu said. “What to do? I tell this truth to our American friends, and I also stopped the attempt to impose a reality on us that would harm Israel’s security.”Pramila Jayapal, the US representative who heads the influential Congressional Progressive caucus, on Friday issued one of the sharper responses to Netanyahu, saying in a video that the Israeli prime minister’s stance “should cause us to reset our relationship of unconditional support to [his] government”.“These are policies that are diametrically opposed to the US’s stated goals,” Jayapal said about Netanyahu’s calls for the permanent expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza.Meanwhile, 15 Jewish members of the House released a statement Friday saying they “strongly disagree with the prime minister” of the predominantly Jewish nation.“A two-state solution is the path forward,” said the statement, whose signatories included Jerry Nadler, Jamie Raskin, Adam Schiff and Elissa Slotkin. They were joined by 11 fellow House Democrats: Jake Auchincloss, Rebecca Balint, Suzanne Bonamici, Steve Cohen, Daniel Goldman, Seth Magaziner, Mike Levin, Dean Phillips, Jan Schakowsky, Kim Schrier and Bradley Sherman.In a separate statement, the Democratic strategist Waleed Shahid predicted that “continuing to unconditionally fund Israel’s war in Gaza” would cost him enough votes to doom Joe Biden’s campaign to be re-elected as president.“He will break a fundamental trust with many Democrats,” said Shahid, a former spokesperson for the progressive political action committee Justice Democrats. Shahid also warned that “lecturing about the greater evil” represented by the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, Donald Trump, would do “little” to repair it.Trump is facing more than 90 pending criminal charges for attempting to forcibly overturn his defeat to Biden in the 2020 election, illegally retaining government secrets after he left the Oval Office, and hush-money payments to an adult film actor who has alleged an extramarital sexual encounter with him. He has also been grappling with civil litigation over his business practices and a rape accusation which a judge has determined to be substantially true.“I pray, for all our sakes, that Biden corrects course – because our country cannot afford to pay the bill for disregarding Palestinian lives should it come due in November,” Shahid said.A spokesperson for Biden’s national security council, John Kirby, said the president and Netanyahu discussed “post-conflict Gaza” on Friday by telephone, as the foreign policy reporter Laura Rozen wrote on the social media platform X.Biden made clear that “an independent Palestinian state” was important for long-term security, Kirby remarked, as reported by Rozen.“The president still believes in the promise and the possibility of a two state solution,” Kirby said, in part, according to Rozen. “And the United States stands firmly committed to eventually seeing that outcome.”Despite occasionally endorsing the concept, Netanyahu has worked to obstruct the establishment of a Palestinian state throughout his political career.His statements on Thursday were his most pointed attack on the US’s preferred foreign policy approach in Gaza, however.It came after Biden’s administration had spent enormous domestic political capital – and billions of dollars in aid – to support Israel’s military in its strikes there.Israel, which receives $3.8bn annually in security assistance from the US, mounted the offensive in Gaza in response to the 7 October attack by Hamas that killed about 1,200. Israeli military operations in Gaza have since killed more than 24,000 people.Netanyahu’s comments on Thursday came two days after US senators defeated a measure from the progressive Bernie Sanders that would have made military aid to Israel conditional on whether the Israeli government is violating human rights and international accords with its offensive in Gaza.Biden’s White House opposed Sanders’s proposal and has asked Congress to approve an additional $14bn for Israel. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Bernie Sanders demands answers on Israel’s ‘indiscriminate’ Gaza bombing

      by

      The US’s support for Israel’s bombing campaign in Gaza is facing new scrutiny in Washington following a proposed resolution by the independent senator Bernie Sanders that could ultimately be used to curtail military assistance.It is far from clear whether Sanders has the support to pass the resolution, but its introduction in the Senate this week – by an important progressive ally of the US president, Joe Biden – highlights mounting human rights and political concerns by Democrats on Capitol Hill.Citing the killing of nearly 19,000 people and wounding of more than 50,000 in Gaza since Hamas’s brutal 7 October attack, Sanders said it was time to force a debate on the bombing that has been carried out by the rightwing government of the Israel prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the US government’s “complicity” in the war.“This is a humanitarian cataclysm, and it is being done with American bombs and money. We need to face up to that fact – and then we need to end our complicity in those actions,” Sanders said in a statement.If passed, the resolution would force the US state department to report back to Congress any violations of internationally recognized human rights caused by “indiscriminate or disproportionate” military operations in Gaza, as well as “the blanket denial of basic humanitarian needs”.The state department would also have to report back on any actions the US has taken to limit civilian risk caused by Israeli actions, a summary of arms provided to Israel since 7 October, an assessment of Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law in Gaza, and a certification that Israeli security forces have not committed any human rights violations.“We all know Hamas’s brutal terrorist attack began this war,” Sanders said. “But the Netanyahu government’s indiscriminate bombing is immoral, it is in violation of international law, and the Congress must demand answers about the conduct of this campaign. A just cause for war does not excuse atrocities in the conduct of that war.”Any such resolution would have to clear the Senate but only require a simple majority. It would also have to pass the House and be signed by the White House.The resolution includes details about the extensive use of US arms, including massive explosive ordinance, such as Mark 84 2,000lb bombs and 155mm artillery, and includes “credible findings” by human rights monitors and press organizations about the use of US arms in specific strikes that killed a large number of civilians.If the resolution were to pass, the administration would have 30 days to produce the requested report. After it is received, Congress would under US law be able to condition, restrict, terminate or continue security assistance to Israel.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionCongress has not requested such a resolution since 1976.Sanders has come under pressure from progressive Democrats to support calls for a ceasefire. Instead, the senator has previously called for a “humanitarian pause” to allow more aid into Gaza.In a letter to Biden this week, Sanders called on the US president to withdraw his support for a $10.1bn weapons package for Israel, which is contained in a proposed supplemental foreign aid package, and for the US to support a UN resolution it has previous vetoed demanding an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Antisemites supporting Israel is weird. Jewish support of them is even weirder | Sam Wolfson

      by

      Perhaps the most bizarre spectacle of the past month has been watching some of the world’s most wretched antisemites lining up to give their unalloyed support to Israel. Even more jarring has been their embrace by those who are supposed to advocate for Jewish safety.These people include the radical US pastor John Hagee, who previously claimed that Adolf Hitler had been born from a lineage of “accursed, genocidally murderous half-breed Jews” and sent by God to help the Jews reach the promised land. (He apologized in 2008 for some of his remarks.) He was invited to speak last Tuesday to an audience of thousands at the March for Israel in Washington, organised by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, to help “condemn the rising trend of antisemitic violence”.Tommy Robinson, a leading member of the British far right, recently called on people to go to the Cenotaph, a war memorial in central London, to “protect” it from pro-Palestinian protesters. Last year Robinson defended Kanye West, saying it was obvious that “there are powerful Jewish people, claiming to be Zionists, who have their fingers on buttons of power in the entertainment industry, in big tech … and in governments” and that Jews “generally speaking, at least the white European Jews, have an average IQ of 110, so inevitably those Jews will rise to the top of corporations”.Despite Robinson’s history of inflammatory and conspiratorial remarks, a 2019 Guardian investigation found that many of the groups bankrolling or supporting his organisation were rightwing pro-Israel thinktanks in the US, including Middle East Forum and the Gatestone Institute.Then there’s US presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr, who earlier this year repeated the conspiracy theory that Covid-19 was “targeted” to spare Jewish and Chinese people. When he was accused of propagating antisemitism, which he denies, Kennedy chose to blast representatives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for insufficient support of Israel, saying that “criticism of Israel is a false narrative” and “Israel is a shining star on human rights in the Middle East”.Kennedy was rewarded with an op-ed in Jewish Journal, a pro-Israel publication, titled “RFK is an Ally, not an Antisemite”, which argued that despite his comments “RFK’s unwavering commitment to Israel as a Jewish state is sincere and integral to his political values”.Europe’s far-right political parties have a long history of promoting antisemitism. Yet Marine Le Pen’s National Front in France, the AfD in Germany and Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party in Hungary all have given unequivocal support to Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. Indeed, Netanyahu considers Orbán a close ally and often tweets support for him.In the US, there is Donald Trump, whose election was heralded by antisemites’ biggest public rally in the US in a generation, the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Yet because Trump was also demonstrably pro-Israel in his foreign policy stances, notably moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, he receives ongoing support and endorsements from many pro-Israel pressure groups. Some of them were nervous when he criticised Israel’s lack of military preparedness for the Hamas attacks, but he’s now back in the fold, adding “#IStandWithBibi”to his Truth Social posts.This month Elon Musk agreed with a post on Twitter that said Jewish people have been pushing “dialectical hatred against whites”. The owner of the account, which had fewer than 6,000 followers, went on to say he was “deeply disinterested in giving the tiniest shit now about western Jewish populations”.“You have said the actual truth,” Musk said. This was not an unusual stance for Musk, who denies that he is antisemitic. He has flirted with white nationalism many times, and earlier this year he remarked that the Jewish billionaire George Soros “reminds me of Magneto” (the evil X-Men villain, who, like Soros, is a Holocaust survivor).As expected, Musk was admonished by the Biden administration, advertisers on X and Jonathan Greenblatt, the head of the Anti-Defamation League, the world’s most prominent pressure group in protecting Jews from antisemitism. Musk has attacked Greenblatt and the ADL many times, threatening them with lawsuits, saying the group over-polices language on social media and calling them “ironically the biggest generators of anti-Semitism on this platform”.Netanyahu didn’t bother to admonish Musk at all – the pair are friends, and Netanyahu has called him the “Edison of our time” even after many examples of Musk giving a platform to antisemites.Musk did not remove the original post; instead he denied he was an antisemite and promised to come down hard on those who defended Palestinian rights on X, saying he would remove users who posted phrases like “decolonization” and “from the river to the sea”, which he said were “euphemisms” that “necessarily imply genocide”.Greenblatt was thrilled: “I appreciate this leadership in fighting hate.”Over and over again, alleged antisemites or those who give platforms to antisemites have had their offenses chalked off by some in the pro-Israel movement, as long as they show sufficient deference to the Israeli project.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionFor decades, groups like the ADL have made it clear that one can only go so far in criticising the actions of the Israeli state before that critique can be dismissed as antisemitism – that some hand-wringing over settler violence in the West Bank is permitted, but that anything beyond that is in the danger zone of hate speech. Greenblatt said in a speech last year that “anti-Zionism is antisemitism”, a statement he only slightly qualified in a tetchy New Yorker interview.This is an idea promoted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), whose definition of antisemitism, adopted by many organisations, states and legal frameworks, includes examples that conflate Judaism with Zionism and suggest the state of Israel embodies the self-determination of all Jews. The IHRA definition has been used in many cases to label groups and movements like the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement as antisemitic.This straitjacket definition of who is antisemitic apparently includes some Jews themselves who are horrified by the inhumanity of Israeli violence and apartheid. Compare the ADL’s reaction to Musk with their words last month when an alliance of Jewish Americans met in New York and Washington DC to protest against the relentless and indiscriminate killing of Palestinians in Gaza.I was at the New York event and was incredibly moved by speakers who talked about the importance of Jews coming together, in spite of our collective trauma, to say that violence will not be carried out in our names. Greenblatt responded to these tender protests by saying that the protesters were “hate groups” that “don’t represent the Jewish community” – essentially, that we are not real Jews.Greenblatt’s remarks echo similar claims he made last year, that groups like Jewish Voice for Peace are “radical actors [who] indisputably and unapologetically regularly denigrate and dehumanize Jews”.The rationale behind these reactions is twisted and wrong: Israel is supposed to be a homeland for Jews from the horrors of the pogroms, the Holocaust and antisemitism. Yet we are now reaching an illogical conclusion where organisations supposed to protect Jewish rights turn a blind eye to antipathy towards Jews as long as proponents support Israel.This does not make Jews safer. It does not even make sense.
      Sam Wolfson is a writer and senior editor at the Guardian US More

    • 163 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      In a world on fire, Biden struggles to banish the curse of Trump

      by

      Is Joe jinxed? In less than three years as US president, Joe Biden has faced more than his fair share of international crises. America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan blew up in his hands like a cluster bomb. Then came Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and Europe’s biggest war since 1945. Now, suddenly, the Middle East is in flames.It could just be bad luck. Or it could be Biden, who prides himself on foreign policy expertise, is not as good at running the world as he thinks. But there is another explanation. It’s called Donald Trump. If Biden’s presidency is cursed, it’s by the toxic legacy of the “very stable genius” who preceded him.It’s worth noting how the poisonous effects of Trump’s geostrategic car crashes, clumsy policy missteps and egotistic blunders continue to be felt around the world – not least because he hopes to be president again. In 2020, with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his side, Trump unveiled his “ultimate deal” for peace in Israel-Palestine.His plan was a gift to rightwing Jewish nationalists, offering Israel full control over Jerusalem and large parts of the West Bank and Jordan Valley while shattering hopes of a viable Palestinian state. It was laughably, amateurishly lopsided. Except it was no joke. It excluded and humiliated Mahmoud Abbas’s Palestinian Authority, convinced many that peaceful dialogue was futile and so empowered Hamas.Netanyahu had long advised Trump that the Palestinians could be safely ignored, normalisation with Arab states was a better, more lucrative bet and Iran was the bigger threat. Now he could barely contain his glee. “You have been the greatest friend that Israel has ever had in the White House,” he cooed. Naturally, Trump lapped it up.The catastrophic consequences of Trump’s dangerous fantasising are now plain to all – but it’s Biden, his re-election prospects at risk, who is getting heat from left and right. Partly it’s his own fault. He thought the Palestinian question could be frozen. Meanwhile, Trump, typically, has turned against Netanyahu while praising Hamas’s close ally, Iranian-backed Hezbollah, as “very smart”.The 2018 decision by Trump, egged on by Israel, to unilaterally renege on the west’s UN-backed nuclear counter-proliferation accord with Iran was the biggest American foreign policy blunder since the Iraq invasion. Ensuing, additional US economic sanctions fatally weakened the moderately reformist presidency of Hassan Rouhani.Iran took Trump’s confrontational cue – and shifted sharply to the anti-western, rejectionist right. A notorious hardliner, Ebrahim Raisi, president since 2021, has pursued close alliances with Russia and China. At home, a corrupt, anti-democratic clerical oligarchy, topped by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, brutally suppresses dissent, notably advocates of women’s rights.Mahsa Yazdani is the mullahs’ latest victim. Her “crime”, for which she was jailed for 13 years, was to denounce the killing by security forces of her son, Mohammad Javad Zahedi. Such persecution is commonplace. Yet if the Barack Obama-Biden policy of engagement, backed by Britain and the EU, had been maintained by Trump, things might be very different today, inside and outside Iran.Instead, Biden faces an angry foe threatening daily to escalate the Israel-Hamas war. Iran and its militias are the reason he is deploying huge military force to the region. Iran is why US bases in the Gulf, Syria and Iraq are under fire. And thanks to Trump (and Netanyahu), Iran may be closer than ever to acquiring nuclear weapons capability.Trump’s uncritical, submissive, often suspiciously furtive attitude to Vladimir Putin has undermined Biden’s Russia policy, doing untold, lasting harm. Untold because Democrats have given up trying to cast light on at least a dozen, publicly unrecorded Trump-Putin calls and meetings over four years in the White House.It’s not necessary to believe Moscow’s spooks possess embarrassing sex tapes, or that Trump solicited Russian meddling in US elections, to wonder whether he cut private deals with Putin. Did he, for example, suggest the US would stand aside if Russia invaded Ukraine, where there had been fighting over the Donbas and Crimea since 2014? Trump has a personal beef with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy. That alone is sufficient to shape his policy.Trump’s criticism of European allies and threats to quit Nato caused a damaging loss of mutual confidence that Biden still struggles to repair. For his part, manipulative Putin sticks up for the former president. He recently declared that federal lawsuits against Trump amounted to “persecution of a political rival for political reasons”. Evidently, he’d like to see his pal back in power.Did Trump’s behaviour in office, his impeachments and failed coup, encourage Putin (and China’s Xi Jinping) to view American democracy as sick, failing and demoralised. Probably. Trump’s 2020 Afghanistan “peace deal” – in truth, an abject capitulation to the Taliban – confirmed their low opinion. It led directly to the chaotic 2021 withdrawal and a shredding of US global credibility that was largely blamed on Biden.Little wonder Putin calculates that American staying power will again fade as Trump, campaigning when not in court, trashes Biden’s Ukraine policy and his House Republican followers block military aid to Kyiv. Unabashed by his Middle East fiasco, Trump vainly boasts he would conjure a Ukraine peace deal overnight – if re-elected (and not in jail).It’s an unusually challenging time in world affairs. And Biden has been unlucky domestically, too, given a post-pandemic cost of living crisis and a supreme court gone rogue. Yet his biggest political misfortune remains the noxious global legacy and continuing, uniquely destructive presence of Trump.He is more than just a rival waiting for an 80-year-old president to slip and take a tumble. Symbolically, Trump is nemesis. He is the darkness beyond the pale, he’s a monster lurking in the depths, he’s the enemy within. He’s Joe’s Jonah.
      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

    • 213 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Biden’s urgent mission: the US pivots back to the Middle East | Editorial

      by

      In the wake of the carnage wrought by Hamas in southern Israel, killing at least 1,300 people; with bombs still raining upon Gaza, having killed at least 3,000; and with 199 children and adults still held hostage, the horror is increased by the prospect of this violence begetting more.The US hopes two aircraft carrier groups in the eastern Mediterranean, non-stop shuttle diplomacy by the secretary of state and a presidential visit to Israel will see off the twin spectres of even greater humanitarian disaster in Gaza and regional catastrophe drawing in Hezbollah in Lebanon and perhaps others. Officially, Joe Biden’s visit to Israel on Wednesday will demonstrate that the US stands with Israel. It may offer Benjamin Netanyahu, disgraced in the eyes of his nation, a political lifeline. But if it is a warning to Hezbollah and Iran, it is also being used to rein in Mr Netanyahu. The US reportedly agreed to the trip only after Israel agreed to move on humanitarian aid and safe areas for civilians to avoid the bombing.But the statement that the two countries will “develop a plan” for delivery is noticeably modest. Even if implemented, it might not hold. Though Israel told the US it would restore the water supply to southern Gaza on Monday, those on the ground report only tiny quantities getting through. And while aid is essential, delivering food and medicines is hard to do and of limited use while air strikes continue.More critical may be the fact that the US, with its own disasters in Afghanistan and Iraq in mind, is pressing Israel to think hard about its plan for Gaza. President Biden warned publicly on Sunday that occupying Gaza would be a mistake. At that point, a ground incursion was regarded as imminent. But his visit has pressed pause, and on Tuesday, the IDF spokesperson Richard Hecht remarked: “Everyone’s talking about the ground offensive. It might be something different.”What happens in Gaza is likely to determine what happens in the north. On Monday, Israel gave an unprecedented order for residents close to the Lebanon border to evacuate south. The area has already seen rocket and missile attacks and border skirmishes. Hezbollah and Israel have trodden carefully since the 2006 war, for which Lebanese civilians mostly paid, though the militant group has built up its fire power and tested the boundaries. But Hezbollah has indicated that it has two red lines: the forcible displacement of large numbers of Palestinians outside Gaza – though Egypt has made it clear it does not want them – and a ground invasion aiming to destroy Hamas: Israel’s stated intention. Behind Hezbollah stands Iran; its foreign minister has warned of “multiple fronts” opening against Israel if it continues to kill civilians in Gaza.Iran does not want to lose Hezbollah, its main proxy force. But nor does it want to see Hamas wiped out. If that looks likely, experts suggest that it would probably also ask Iraqi militias to deploy to Syria or Lebanon. Washington has sent clear warnings to Tehran to stay out of it, while also indicating that it is not looking for a fight. The danger is that while neither the US nor Iran want to be drawn in further, the dynamics on the ground have their own momentum.The unendurable violence witnessed this month in part has its roots in the belief of the US and other governments that the conflict at the heart of the Middle East was unsolvable but manageable, and could be sidelined. Many warned at the time that was wrong. It appears all the more impossible to manage now – and yet that is precisely why the US and others must attempt to do so. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US pro-Israel groups in bitter feud over Netanyahu’s far-right government

      by

      A public feud has broken out between the US’s leading pro-Israel lobby groups over who represents the true interests of the Jewish state in Washington under the most rightwing government in its history.The hardline American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) has called its smaller and more liberal rival, J Street, a “grave threat” to Israel’s security and accused it of endorsing the country’s “most virulent critics” in Congress.J Street has responded by portraying Aipac as a front for Benjamin Netanyahu’s extremist coalition, while accusing it of failing to support unprecedented Israeli public protests against an undemocratic power grab by the government.The vitriolic dispute reflects a deepening divide among American Jews about what it is to be pro-Israel. But it also comes as Aipac’s once-unchallenged influence in Washington has been diminished by its unwavering backing for Netanyahu over the past decade or more, including siding with the Israeli leader against President Barack Obama, and by growing support for the Palestinian cause within the Democratic party as Israel further entrenches its occupation.Aipac’s standing was also damaged when, for the first time in its history, it broke with its claim to be bipartisan last year and began directly funding political campaigns against critics of Israeli government policies. It was accused of being “morally bankrupt” for endorsing Republican members of Congress who tried to block President Biden’s presidential election victory.At the heart of the dispute is Aipac’s position that support for Israel means virtually unquestioned backing for whatever government is in power. J Street argues that support for Israel requires standing for the country’s broader interests, including an end to occupation, even when that is in opposition to the policies of a particular administration in Jerusalem.As the two lobby groups prepare to face off by pouring millions of dollars into backing rival candidates in next year’s congressional elections, Aipac sent its donors a letter attacking J Street’s policies such as imposing conditions on the US’s $3.8bn a year in military aid to Israel to prevent it being used to annex Palestinian territory, expand Jewish settlements or other actions to entrench occupation. J Street endorsed the Democratic congresswoman Betty McCollum’s 2021 bill to place similar conditions on US aid.“Today, one of the gravest threats to American support for Israel’s security comes from an organization that outrageously calls itself pro-Israel,” Aipac said in the letter.“J Street’s efforts fracture the bipartisan consensus for Israel and give its radical opponents in Congress a veneer of legitimacy from an allegedly ‘pro-Israel’ group. This is a clear and present threat to American support for the Jewish state.”J Street’s president, Jeremy Ben-Ami, fired back in a series of tweets.“Sadly, over time, Aipac has embraced an increasingly distorted vision of what it means to be ‘pro-Israel’ – one more aligned with the goals of the Netanyahu government and the American right than with the Jewish, democratic values of most Jewish Americans (+ Israelis themselves),” he wrote.“There’s no room for genuine concern over eroding democracy, endless settlements, racist rhetoric and the growing toll of maintaining a permanent, unjust, undemocratic occupation.”Aipac’s attack in part reflects a growing concern within the Israeli government that demands by J Street and others for the US government to take a stronger stand to end the occupation will gain wider traction in Washington.The dispute has spilled over to Israel itself.The liberal Tel Aviv newspaper Haaretz two weeks ago described Aipac as “the pro-Netanyahu, anti-Israel lobby” and accused the group of flying in 24 Democratic members of Congress “so that Netanyahu could mollify them with lies”.“Effectively, the organization has become an operational wing of Netanyahu’s far-right government, one that peddles a false image of a liberal Israel in the United States and sells illusions to members of Congress,” it said.The leaders of Israel’s pro-democracy movement, which has led months of mass protests against the government’s moves to weaken the power of the judiciary, accused Aipac of blocking the visiting Democratic members of Congress from meeting the protesters.“It is about time Aipac realizes that there are no longer any buyers for the fake picture of Israel it’s trying to sell,” said the authors, who included the former deputy head of Israel’s national security council and former officials in the prime minister’s office.“Aipac is trying to offer an alternative reality and is effectively turning from a pro-Israel organization to one that promotes the anti-democratic overhaul and the de facto annexation of the West Bank, led by Netanyahu and aided by the most extreme, racist and violent elements of the Israeli far right.” More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Progressive Democrats protest Israeli president’s address to US Congress

      by

      Democratic divisions over Israel were on stark display on Tuesday, as lawmakers prepared to welcome Isaac “Bougie” Herzog, the president of Israel, for an address to a joint session of Congress.Several progressive House members, including Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, intend to boycott Herzog’s speech on Wednesday to protest against the treatment of Palestinians under the government of Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.“In solidarity with the Palestinian people and all those who have been harmed by Israel’s apartheid government, I will be boycotting President Herzog’s joint address to Congress,” Representative Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat of Michigan, said on Monday. “I urge all members of Congress who stand for human rights for all to join me.”House Democratic leaders have struck a much more conciliatory tone toward Herzog, embracing the opportunity to hear from the Israeli president.“President Bougie Herzog has been a force for good in Israeli society,” Hakeem Jeffries, the House Democratic leader, said on Friday. “I look forward to welcoming him with open arms when he comes to speak before Congress.”The tension between House Democrats reached a boiling point over the weekend, after Pramila Jayapal, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, described Israel as a “racist state” while speaking at a conference in Chicago.Jayapal clarified her comments on Sunday, saying: “I do not believe the idea of Israel as a nation is racist. I do, however, believe that Netanyahu’s extreme rightwing government has engaged in discriminatory and outright racist policies and that there are extreme racists driving that policy within the leadership of the current government.”House Republicans swiftly attacked Jayapal’s comments, calling on Democratic leaders to join them in rejecting the congresswoman’s criticism of Israel.“I think if the Democrats want to believe that they do not have a conference that continues to make antisemitic remarks, they need to do something about it,” the House Republican speaker, Kevin McCarthy, said on Monday.Amid the backlash, more than 40 House Democrats signed on to a statement lambasting Jayapal’s “unacceptable” remarks and praising Israel as “the only vibrant, progressive, and inclusive democracy in the region”. House Democratic leaders also issued a joint statement on Sunday denouncing the characterization of Israel as a “racist state”.“As House Democratic leaders, we strongly support Israel’s right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people,” the leaders said. “We are also firmly committed to a robust two-state solution where Israel and the Palestinian people can live side by side in peace and prosperity.”Although the joint statement did not mention Jayapal by name, progressives balked at the leaders’ rejection of one of their colleagues in an effort to quiet criticism from Republicans.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“I am proud to call [Jayapal] a colleague, a friend and our CPC Chair,” Omar said on Tuesday on Twitter. “I am also deeply concerned about the shaming – often of women of color – when they speak out about human rights violations happening in Palestine and Israel, especially when similar concern is not expressed for the lives being lost and families being torn apart.”House Republicans seized the opportunity to highlight the Democratic divisions over Israel. The House Republican majority leader, Steve Scalise, announced on Monday that the chamber would vote on Tuesday on a resolution asserting “the state of Israel is not a racist or apartheid state”.“It should be an easy vote,” Scalise said on Twitter. “Will [Democrats] stand with our ally or capitulate to the anti-Semitic radicals in their party?”As his congressional allies clashed over Herzog’s visit, Joe Biden met with the Israeli president in the Oval Office on Tuesday.“This is a friendship, I believe, that’s just simply unbreakable,” Biden told Herzog. “America’s commitment to Israel is firm, and it is ironclad.”A day before his meeting with Herzog, Biden spoke to Netanyahu over the phone, and the two leaders agreed to meet in the coming months. But a spokesperson for the national security council, John Kirby, would not specify whether that meeting will take place at the White House, as Netanyahu has repeatedly requested.“They will meet probably before the end of this year,” Kirby told reporters on Monday. “And all the details of the ‘wheres’ and the ‘whens’ are still being worked out.” More