Gaza

Subterms

    More stories

    • 200 Shares123 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘I had to get out’: the US military officers filing for conscientious objector status over Gaza

      by

      For Joy Metzler, a second lieutenant in the US air force, joining the military had felt like answering a calling. An adoptee from China who was raised in a conservative Christian family, she believed she owed a debt to the United States.But the Hamas attacks in Israel last year, and Israel’s war that followed, rocked Metzler’s convictions. Within months, she filed for conscientious objector status, one of a small number of US military personnel seeking to end their service because of their moral opposition to US support for Israel.“I didn’t know Palestine was a place before October 7,” Metzler told the Guardian.“All of a sudden it felt like a light clicking on for me.”As the war in Gaza enters a second year, some disillusioned members of the US military have turned to the Vietnam war-era conscientious objector policy to terminate their military service because of religious or moral convictions.There are few avenues to express dissent in the army. Earlier this year, Harrison Mann, an army officer assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency resigned in protest of US support for Israel. In a far more extreme gesture, 25-year-old US airman Aaron Bushnell died after setting himself on fire outside the Israeli embassy in Washington in February.The conscientious objector route is a seldom-invoked alternative that few service members are aware of – though some advocates say there has been an uptick in interest in the last year.The defense department referred questions about the number of conscientious objectors to each branch of the military. A spokesperson for the air force said that it has received 42 applications since 2021 and granted 36. Applications since 7 October “are on trend with pre-conflict averages”, the spokesperson added. (The army, navy, and Marine Corps did not respond to requests for comment.)But while the numbers remain relatively low, the war in Gaza is top of mind for those service members who have considered conscientious objector status this year, said Bill Galvin, a Vietnam-era objector and director of counseling at the Center on Conscience and War, one of a handful of groups that helps military members navigate the complex bureaucratic process.Galvin said his group helps roughly 50 to 70 applicants a year, across military branches, and that there’s been more interest than usual this year.The US has subsidized Israel’s war in Gaza to the tune of nearly $18bn over the last year, and is growing more deeply entangled as the conflict spills into the broader region. The Biden administration recently announced the deployment of 100 troops to Israel to man a missile defense system in anticipation of an escalation against Iran.“Almost everyone that I’ve talked to has at least cited what’s happening in Gaza as a factor in causing them to rethink what they’re doing,” Galvin said. “Some have actually said: ‘I know that the airplane that I’m doing maintenance on is delivering weaponry to Israel and so I feel complicit.’”Metzler said she was raised to believe that Israel is “the nation of God’s chosen people” and “terrorists were morally bankrupt people, who hate us because of who we are”.When the war in Gaza started, the images of Palestinian civilians’ suffering disturbed her, but it wasn’t until Bushnell’s self-immolation that she started reading about the history of the conflict and the role of the US government in it. “A lot of the things I had been told about the US’s role in the world were wrong”, she said.The war pushed Metzler to re-evaluate her time in the air force academy. She recalled laughing with her classmates as they watched footage of people running from a drone – she wasn’t sure in which country. She felt ashamed.“I had come out of the academy glorifying the act of warfare,” she said. “There’s a certain disregard for human life that you just have to have to be a member of the military.”Metzler learned about the conscientious objector option when she met a group of veterans at a pro-Palestine protest at the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she’s completing a master’s in aerospatial engineering.The defense department first introduced the objector application process in 1962. Tens of thousands obtained the status over the following decade, as the Vietnam war, and a mandatory draft, sparked a mass antiwar movement. But since then, the number of applicants has fallen drastically, with many members of the military unaware that the option even exists.“It’s not common knowledge,” said Metzler. “You don’t want to advertise to the people that are working for you that there’s a legal way for you to break your contract if you start to feel weird feelings.”For the few who embark on it, the process is rigorous and lengthy – Metzler’s application filled 19 pages and she is still waiting for final word after filing it in July. Applicants must demonstrate that they are opposed to all wars and that their beliefs about military service changed after they enlisted. They have to interview with a chaplain and with a mental health professional before an investigating officer reviews their case and makes a recommendation to a committee that decides whether to grant the status. In the past, the military has approved about half the conscientious objector applications it received.Larry Hebert, another US senior airman, said the process was “excruciatingly long”.A six-year veteran, Hebert reached what he called “a moral break” as horrific images of Palestinian children resembling his own filled his TikTok.During a leave from his service in Spain in March, he traveled to Washington and staged a hunger strike in front of the White House to highlight the plight of starving children in Gaza. He later applied for conscientious objector status, but as the wait became unbearable, he filed for voluntary separation, another avenue to legally end one’s service. When that was rejected, he took off his uniform and refused to obey orders. He was disciplined and is currently waiting to be released on administrative grounds“I had to get out,” he said. “I didn’t want to be a part of any of it.”Juan Bettancourt, a US airman who also filed for conscientious objector status earlier this year, told the Guardian that many of the service members he has spoken with have fear of speaking out but are privately appalled by US support for Israel. “There’s a lot of deep-seated criticism and moral disgust at the complicity of our government in the genocide in Gaza,” he said.Because dissenting voices are so rare, the military just tries to “brush them under the rug”, Bettancourt added, noting that Bushnell’s self-immolation was portrayed by the air force exclusively as a matter of “mental health,” Bettancourt said.View image in fullscreenThe air force spokesperson wrote in a statement that the force is committed to ensuring its members “never feel compelled to resort to self-harm as a means of protest”. She added that policies like the conscientious objector process “provide a safe avenue for individuals to voice their concerns”.But service members say voicing dissent is not easy, with a number of them incorrectly believing it’s illegal for them to do so or fearing they may get into trouble for raising questions. (Metzler, Bettancourt and Hebert all stressed they are speaking for themselves, and not on behalf of the military.)To address that, a coalition of military personnel and veterans groups have launched an “appeal to redress” campaign, modeled after an earlier one during the Iraq war, as a way for service members to register their opposition with legislators to the US’s Israel policy.Metzler, Bettancourt and Hebert have also launched Servicemembers for Ceasefire, offering resources for fellow members who are opposed to the war, including an explanation of the conscientious objector process.Metzler stresses that they are not encouraging people to leave the military – they just want those with doubts to know that they have options.“I’m not saying you have to jump ship or refuse orders,” she said. “But at the very least, pick up a book, figure out what’s going on in the world, and understand the context of what you’re doing.” More

    • 188 Shares183 Views

      in US Politics

      Harris hails first-time and gen Z voters at Wisconsin rally: ‘I’m so proud of you’

      by

      Kamala Harris warned a crowd that time was running out at a get-out-the-vote event in Madison, Wisconsin, on Wednesday, joined by a lineup of folk and pop musicians including Remi Wolf, Gracie Abrams and Mumford & Sons.“We have six days left in one of the most consequential elections of our lifetime,” the vice-president and Democratic nominee told the crowd, denouncing Donald Trump and issuing a dire warning about the consequences of a second Trump presidency.“On day one Donald Trump would walk into office with an enemies list,” said Harris, before launching into a speech highlighting her policy planks, including a proposal to cut taxes on small businesses and to expand healthcare coverage for families caring for an elderly parent at home. To prolonged applause, Harris rallied the crowd in support of abortion rights, vowing to sign protections for reproductive healthcare into law.As she has often during her campaign, Harris projected a centrist image, pledging “to listen to experts, to those who will be impacted by the decisions I make, and to people who disagree with me”.During her speech, protesters in two different sections of the crowd interrupted her to draw attention to Israel’s war in Gaza, shouting “free Palestine” and unfurling banners.Pausing to address the demonstrators, Harris said: “We all want the war in Gaza to end and get the hostages out as soon as possible, and I will do everything in my power to make it heard and known.” She added, to cheers: “Everyone has a right to be heard, but right now I am speaking.”Harris has repeatedly visited Wisconsin, a key swing state where elections are decided by the razor-thin margins. She has paid special attention to Madison, and its suburbs, which reliably turn out overwhelming majorities for Democratic party candidates in races that generate unusually high turnout. In the 2020 presidential election, voter turnout in Dane county reached 89%.The campaign has invested in youth organizing in Wisconsin, hiring seven full-time campus organizers and a youth organizing coordinator. To broad applause, Ty Schanhofer, a first-time voter and student at the University of Wisconsin, introduced Harris and encouraged students to vote early.

      Don’t miss important US election coverage. Get our free app and sign up for election alerts
      “I love your generation, I just love you guys,” said Harris, during the rally, praising young people for being “rightly impatient for change” and enumerating a list of challenges, including the climate crisis and school shootings, that have come to define the gen Z experience. “I see your power, and I’m so proud of you. Can we hear it for our first-time voters!”The former lieutenant governor Mandela Barnes spoke at the rally too, highlighting the narrow margins that have come to define statewide elections in Wisconsin.“I want us to feel joy once again,” said Barnes, who ran for a seat in the US Senate and lost by one point to Ron Johnson, the incumbent Republican who has bolstered Donald Trump’s wildest conspiracy theories – including his claims of a stolen election in 2020. Chris LaCivita, a senior staffer on the Johnson campaign, is co-manager of Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign.The campaign punctuated speeches including Barnes’s with musical acts to rally the crowd.“We have values and ideas that deserve a platform,” said the singer-songwriter Gracie Abrams, a popular gen Z musician whose performance drew uproarious applause. “Our participation and our vote have never been more crucial.” Abrams was likely a draw for some in the audience, which leaned young tonight.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe campaign also offered the elder millennials in the crowd something of their own: a performance by the British folk-pop band Mumford & Sons, whose lead singer announced to some surprise that he has voted in California, where he was born.Harris has featured a lineup of celebrity endorsers and performers at her rallies during the 2024 election cycle. In Texas last week, Beyoncé herself appeared to endorse Harris’s presidential bid, and Jennifer Lopez is scheduled to appear with Harris at a rally later this week. The star-studded series of events could give the Harris campaign a boost. When Harris campaigned in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, the folk band Bon Iver – from the Eau Claire area – opened for her.The Madison crowd was energetic on Wednesday night, but with less than a week to go before election day, some Democrats at the venue seemed anxious.“I’ve been making calls for Harris,” said Mary Ann Olson, a retired teacher, who waited in pouring rain for the rally. “If she doesn’t win, and I didn’t do anything, I think I would hate myself.”Olson’s daughter, Chelsea, said she was “really stressed out”, adding: “I’m not sure I can handle four more years of Donald Trump.” More

    • 238 Shares125 Views

      in US Politics

      How can I vote for Kamala Harris if she supports Israel’s war? Here is my answer | Bernie Sanders

      by

      I understand that there are millions of Americans who disagree with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris on the terrible war in Gaza. I am one of them.While Israel had a right to defend itself against the horrific Hamas terrorist attack of 7 October 2023, which killed 1,200 innocent people and took 250 hostages, it did not have the right to wage an all-out war against the entire Palestinian people.It did not have the right to kill 42,000 Palestinians, two-thirds of whom were children, women and the elderly, or injure over 100,000 people in Gaza. It did not have the right to destroy Gaza’s infrastructure and housing and healthcare systems. It did not have the right to bomb every one of Gaza’s 12 universities. It did not have the right to block humanitarian aid, causing massive malnutrition in children and, in fact, starvation.And that is why I am doing everything I can to block US military aid and offensive weapons sales to the rightwing extremist Netanyahu government in Israel. And I know that many of you share those feelings. And some of you are saying, “How can I vote for Kamala Harris if she is supporting this terrible war?” And that is a very fair question.And let me give you my best answer. And that is that even on this issue, Donald Trump and his rightwing friends are worse. In the Senate and in Congress Republicans have worked overtime to block humanitarian aid to the starving children in Gaza. The president and vice-president both support getting as much humanitarian aid into Gaza as soon as possible.Trump has said that Netanyahu is doing a good job and that Biden is holding him back. He has suggested that the Gaza Strip would make excellent beachfront property for development. It is no wonder Netanyahu prefers to have Donald Trump in office.But even more importantly, and this I promise you, after Harris wins we will, together, do everything we can to change US policy toward Netanyahu – including an immediate ceasefire, the return of all hostages, a surge of massive humanitarian aid, the stopping of settler attacks on the West Bank, and the rebuilding of Gaza for the Palestinian people.And let me be clear. We will have, in my view, a much better chance of changing US policy with Harris than with Trump, who is extremely close to Netanyahu and sees him as a like-minded, rightwing extremist ally.But let me also say this, and I deal with this every single day as a US senator. As important as Gaza is, and as strongly as many of us feel about this issue, it is not the only issue at stake in this election.If Trump wins, women in this country will suffer an enormous setback and lose the ability to control their own bodies. That is not acceptable.If Trump wins, to be honest with you, the struggle against the climate crisis is over. While virtually every scientist who has studied the issue understands that the climate crisis is real and an existential threat to our country and the world, Trump believes it is a “hoax”. And if the United States, the largest economy in the world, stops transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel, every other country – China, Europe, all over the world, they will do exactly the same thing. And God only knows the kind of planet we will leave to our kids and future generations.If Trump wins, at a time of enormous income and wealth inequality, he will demand even more tax breaks for the very richest people in our country, while cutting back on programs that working families desperately need. The rich will only get richer, while the minimum wage will remain at $7.25 an hour, and millions of our fellow workers will continue to earn starvation wages.Did you all see the recent Trump rally at Madison Square Garden? Well, I did, and what I can tell you is that as a nation, as all of you know, we have struggled for years against impossible odds to try to overcome all forms of bigotry – whether it is racism, whether it’s sexism, whether it’s homophobia, whether it’s xenophobia, you name it.We have tried to fight against bigotry, but that is exactly what we saw on display at that unbelievable Trump rally. It was not a question of speakers getting up there and disagreeing with Kamala Harris on the issues. That wasn’t the issue at all. They were attacking her simply because she was a woman and a woman of color. Extreme vulgar sexism and racism. Is that really the kind of America that we can allow?So let me conclude by saying this. This is the most consequential election in our lifetimes. Many of you have differences of opinion with Harris on Gaza. So do I. But we cannot sit this election out. Trump has to be defeated. Let’s do everything we can in the next week to make sure that Kamala Harris is our next president.

      Bernie Sanders is a US senator, and chair of the health education labor and pensions committee. He represents the state of Vermont, and is the longest-serving independent in the history of Congress More

    • 213 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Progressives must walk a fine line: end the war in Gaza and elect Harris | Judith Levine

      by

      The war in Gaza is not high among most voters’ concerns. But for many Arab Americans and protesters of the war, it is. As election day nears and the margins tighten – and with the critical swing state of Michigan, home to the largest Arab American community in the nation, up for grabs – these people are among the small, scattered constituencies that could determine the results. This makes their political strategies crucial to the US’s – and, by extension, Palestine’s – future.Some activists working to end the genocide are putting that urgent cause ahead of the other urgent cause: electing a Democrat, if only to prevent a Trump presidency. “If I’m going to be a one-issue voter and that issue is genocide, I’m okay with that,” a Dearborn, Michigan, woman told NPR’s Code Switch.For these people, Harris’s repeated assertions that “far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed” – spoken in the passive voice and always accompanied by even louder assertions of commitment to Israel’s “self-defense” – no longer cut it. A progressive activist who is stumping for Trump in Michigan said there’s nothing the Democrat can do to change her mind. The administration’s collaboration in genocide is unforgivable; she wants the party punished. Her eyes are on the 2028 election, she said – apparently sanguine that there will be an election after the ascension of King Donald the First.In Mondoweiss this month, journalist and activist Saleema Gul interviewed a dozen members of the Uncommitted movement in a post-mortem of its campaign and failure to secure a speaking slot at the DNC this summer. The movement persuaded three-quarters of a million Democratic primary voters to write in “uncommitted” or leave their ballots blank to signal that their support for Biden, now Harris, depends on a pledge to end unconditional military support to Israel.Some of the people interviewed in the piece felt that the movement should have tried to influence the party platform in the primary process and quit there. Others believed that pushing for a speaker at the DNC distracted from organizing anti-war delegates inside the convention. After much debate, the leadership decided to endorse no one. Instead, it is urging supporters to “register anti-Trump votes” and not vote for a third-party presidential candidate. That move, wrote Gul, “has led many to believe the Uncommitted movement has prioritized shielding the Democratic Party over forcefully pushing for an end to the Gaza genocide”.The debate within the uncommitted movement encapsulates the perennial tensions in all political organizing: radical change v incremental reform; grassroots activism v establishment engagement; insider work v outsider disruption; movement-building v election-cycle campaigns. But to put “versus” between any of the above is to misunderstand political strategy: that is, to presume that organizing is either/or.In fact, you can do more than one thing at a time: organize for an arms embargo; get Harris elected; move the Democrats leftward; and build a radical pro-liberation movement.That these tactics don’t always overlap does not mean they contradict each other. Grassroots movements move politicians, not the other way around. But grassroots movements labor for decades far from the centers of influence before policy makers code their ideas and demands – watered down, of course – into bills and statutes. The more local the politician, the more open their ears are to those demands.For instance, in New York City’s safely Democratic congressional districts nine and 10, antiwar groups are asking voters to write in the name of Hind Rajab, a six-year-old Palestinian girl killed by an Israeli tank, instead of voting for the pro-Israel Democrats or any of the other parties’ candidates. The activists want to remind the Dems that their antiwar constituents are watching, without jeopardizing the party’s chances of winning back the House of Representatives. But presidential candidates are as far from the ground as candidates get – and this year a no vote for the Democrat holds potentially catastrophic consequences.You could argue that electing a woman of color as president would be a radical step forward for the US. But Harris is no radical. In fact, presidential elections rarely lead to radical change. The big difference this time is that Trump’s election would.The anti-war movement should not cease to pressure the Harris campaign to win their votes. Her supporters should not cease persuading anti-war voters to vote for her. Right now, a door is opening for both to happen.Harris herself pushed the door ajar. In her interview with Fox News last week, she suggested for the first time that she might break with the Biden administration. “Let me be very clear,” she said. “My presidency will not be a continuation of Joe Biden’s presidency.” She pledged to bring “fresh new ideas” to the Oval Office.One idea – not so fresh, but good anyway – would be to call for the US simply to abide by its own law: the Leahy Law, enacted in 1997, requires the state department to vet military forces receiving US aid for violations of international human rights law. If there’s credible evidence of such violations, the aid must be withheld.Since 2000, former US senator Patrick Leahy has been pressing the state department to apply such scrutiny to Israel, which has remained practically exempt. In May, in the Washington Post, he reasserted the necessity of doing so now, citing violations in Gaza and the West Bank. A former associate general counsel at the Department of Defense told Al Jazeera that the president has no discretion in the matter. “It’s not up for negotiation. It is a binding domestic law on the executive branch,” she said.The confirmed killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar in Rafah this week opens the door even wider. The US can declare that Israel has decapitated its enemy. Although the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has never specified what would constitute victory, candidate Harris can credibly assert that Israel has achieved it. The US has fulfilled its responsibility to its ally. If Bibi wants to keep bombing Gaza, he’s on his own.Abbas Alawieh, a leader of the Uncommitted movement, has stressed many times that its goal is to end the genocide. He has also stressed the significance of this election, not just for the US but also for Palestine. Trump’s stated intention is to let Netanyahu obliterate Gaza, Alawieh has said. The candidate is already musing about potential luxury seaside resorts in Gaza – “better than Monaco”, he said – if, as his son-in-law has put it, Israel would “move the people out and then clean it up”.The movement to end the war must continue. It must succeed. And Trump must be defeated. Both can happen – must happen – at once.

      Judith Levine is a Brooklyn journalist and essayist, a contributing writer to the Intercept and the author of five books More

    • 188 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      US warns Israel of potential halt to arms transfers if Gaza aid is not distributed

      by

      The Biden administration has warned Israel that it faces possible punishment, including the potential stopping of US weapons transfers, if it does not take immediate action to let more humanitarian aid into Gaza.A letter written jointly by Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, and Lloyd Austin, the defence secretary, exhorts Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to ease humanitarian suffering in the territory by lifting restrictions on the entry of assistance within 30 days or face unspecified policy “implications”.The four-page missive, dated 13 October, was sent to Yoav Gallant, the Israeli defence minister, and Ron Dermer, the strategic affairs minister, and came to light after being posted on social media by Barak Ravid, an Israeli journalist who works for Axios, after apparently being leaked.Its authenticity was confirmed by a state department spokesperson, Matthew Miller, at a news briefing on Tuesday.Humanitarian groups have made repeated calls for increased deliveries of food and medicine to Gaza, but aid shipments to the embattled territory are currently at their lowest level in months, the UN said last week.Miller said the US side had intended the letter to be a private diplomatic communication and said its timing was not influenced by next month’s presidential election, which features a knife-edge contest in the battleground state of Michigan, where many Arab American voters have voiced anger over the White House’s support for Israel’s conduct of the war.Democrat strategists harbour fears that discontent over Gaza could result in Kamala Harris, the vice-president and party nominee, losing the state to Donald Trump in the 5 November poll.The letter complains of delays to US-funded aid at crossing points into Gaza and says the flow of assistance into the war-devastated territory has dropped by more than 50% since Israel promised last March to allow more deliveries.“We are particularly concerned that recent actions by the Israeli government … are contributing to an accelerated deterioration in the conditions in Gaza,” it says.White House national security spokesman John Kirby said that the letter was not intended as a threat, but “was simply meant to reiterate the sense of urgency we feel and the seriousness with which we feel it, about the need for an increase, a dramatic increase in humanitarian assistance”.After an uptick in assistance following communications between the US and Israel in March and April, aid volumes entering the strip in September fell to their lowest level, Blinken and Austin wrote, since last October, when Israel launched a massive military offensive in retaliation for an attack by Hamas that killed about 1,200 Israelis, and led to more than 250 being taken hostage.“To reverse the downward humanitarian trajectory and consistent with its assurances to us, Israel must, starting now and within 30 days, act” on a series of specific steps, including letting in at least 350 aid trucks daily and instituting humanitarian pauses to Israeli military activity.The letter adds: “Failure to demonstrate a sustained commitment to implementing and maintaining these measure may have implications for US policy under NSM-20 and relevant US law.”NSM-20 refers to a memorandum issued by the White House national security council, which allows for “appropriate next steps” if a country receiving US military aid is deemed by the state department or the Pentagon not to be meeting prior assurances of allowing the delivery of humanitarian assistance.“Such remediation could include actions from refreshing the assurances to suspending any further transfers of defense articles or, as appropriate, defense services,” the memorandum states.Congressional Republicans have called on the White House to revoke NSM-20 calling it “redundant” and dismissing it as aimed at “placat[ing] critics of security assistance to our vital ally Israel”.Other relevant legislation that could be invoked include section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act and the Leahy Act, which preclude the US government from providing military assistance or selling arms to countries that restrict humanitarian aid or violate human rights.Miller, the state department spokesperson, declined to go into specific when asked what consequences Israel might face for refusing to meet American demands for greater aid access.He said that a previous letter Blinken had written in April had increased humanitarian aid flows. An Israeli official confirmed that the latest letter had been received but did not discuss the details, the Associated Press reported.Miller also said that Blinken had seen footages showing at least one Palestinian burned alive after an Israeli strike set tents ablaze outside a Gaza hospital.“We all saw that video, and all know that it’s horrifying to see people burned to death. We have made clear our serious concerns about the matter directly with the government of Israel.”The US has made repeated exhortations to allow increased aid into the enclave, but Netanyahu has frequently ignored such entreaties to moderate its conduct of the war in Gaza.Last week, UN spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric said that the three hospitals still operating in northern Gaza face “dire shortages” of fuel, medicine and blood, while food supplies are dwindling.Israeli authorities facilitated just one of 54 UN attempts to get aid to north Gaza this month, Dujarric said. Eighty-five percent of the requests were denied, with the rest impeded or canceled for logistical or security reasons.Israel insists that much of the aid has dual-use capacity that could help Hamas fighters and also says it has been subject to looting.More than 42,000 Palestinians have been killed and the majority of buildings in Gaza destroyed or badly damaged in Israel’s yearlong offensive with the stated aim of rooting out Hamas.The Pentagon described the letter as “private correspondence” and declined to discuss it in detail. More

    • 225 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Time is running out for Kamala Harris to break with Biden on the Gaza catastrophe | Moira Donegan

      by

      In an appearance this week on the daytime talkshow The View, Kamala Harris was asked how her presidency would differ from Joe Biden’s. “There is not a thing that comes to mind,” she said. The comment was seized on by the Trump campaign, who have used it in an attempt to seize upon Biden’s unpopularity and blame Harris for the issues that seem to most enrage and terrify their supporters, among them high consumer prices and immigration. But the comment also rankled some members of Harris’s own base: namely, the young, progressive and non-white voters who have been distraught over the suffering inflicted by Israel in its US-backed war on Gaza.If Harris can’t think of any way she would differ from Biden, these voters may have some suggestions for her. The Biden approach to Israel, after all, has been disastrous on multiple fronts. It has been a moral catastrophe, with Israel’s wildly disproportionate campaign of indiscriminate slaughter in Gaza leading to famine, plague and tens of thousands of deaths. It has been an electoral liability, alienating Muslim and Arab American voters in the crucial swing state of Michigan and depressing turnout among the young voters whom Democrats have long relied on and which were a crucial part of Biden’s 2020 victory.And it has been a complete strategic failure, with Israel now expanding its war into Lebanon, the region on the brink of a large-scale conflict between American and Iranian proxies, and the whole world watching as American leaders fail to exert any meaningful pressure or discernible consequences on a small country that has used a great number of US weapons while completely ignoring US instruction.There was a moment, earlier in the war, when things could have gone differently. After the 7 October 2023 attacks killed hundreds of innocent Israelis, the Biden administration reportedly urged caution. But it was only in February, some four months into the war, when much of Gaza had already been leveled and its hundreds of thousands of people displaced into the south, that the Biden White House attempted to stop the Israelis from invading Rafah, the small southern border city where the refugees had fled, by delaying a shipment of 2,000lb bombs.The move had broad support: Nancy Pelosi, hardly a robust supporter of the Palestinian cause, was by then urging enforceable conditions on aid to Israel. The move would also have had the benefit of bringing the Biden administration’s actions more plausibly into line with American and international law, which compels that states not sell arms to armies, like Israel’s, that have likely committed war crimes.It was, to say the least, a mild gesture, and not one that had any impact at all on Israel’s military readiness: all told, America has sent more than 10,000 such bombs to Israel over the past year, many of which have been dropped on Gaza. By the time the Biden administration even so much as dawdled in sending military support to Israel, tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians had already been massacred. But reportedly, the anger that this small act of non-compliance provoked among Israeli officials and the American pro-Israel lobby was so intense that the Biden administration got spooked.No meaningful conditions have been imposed on military aid since, and Israel has openly flouted American efforts to de-escalate, continuing its brutal assault on Gaza, launching an invasion into Lebanon that has displaced approximately 1 million people, and attempting to provoke Iran into an outright war – which, Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israeli government seems to believe, America will fight on Israel’s behalf. Meanwhile, the whole world watches on, with every foreign leader around the globe seeing anew each day the bleak reality of diminished American power: the United States, the Gaza war has proved, neither keeps its promises nor follows through on its threats.But for all that the Biden administration’s handling of the Gaza war has been devastating and embarrassing internationally, it has also been unpopular domestically, creating real electoral dangers for the Harris campaign. The protests that sprang up across American campuses last spring were not merely the venting of a fringe minority; they represented a large-scale mobilization of young people morally outraged by the images coming out of Gaza.These young voters view the Biden administration as complicit in a genocide; for Democrats to assume that this belief is insincere, or that those who hold them will overcome such a grave moral objection and turn out to vote for Harris anyway, seems both entitled and unwise.Early in her campaign, Harris seemed to understand this. She refused to attend Netanyahu’s speech to Congress when he came to Washington this summer, and she had strong words for the Israeli prime minister when they spoke together at a news conference. Harris also made positive rhetorical gestures towards the plight of Palestinians, saying kind words in her convention speech about the injustice of their suffering and their right to self-determination. But for the most part, that’s all these moves were – words. Now, Harris has mostly stopped saying them.Voters have noticed. Specifically, Arab American voters in Michigan have. In February, when Michigan held its Democratic primary, more than 100,000 primary voters cast “uncommitted” ballots, as part of a protest movement aimed at pressuring Biden to change his stance on Gaza. The uncommitted votes were several times greater in number than Biden’s 2020 margin of victory in the state. That discontent has not gone away. A recent national poll of Arab American voters found Trump leading by more than four points among the group, which voted overwhelmingly for Democrats in the last cycle. This may have a particularly potent impact in Michigan, where a new Quinnipiac poll released last week found Harris trailing Trump by three points.Harris may not want to place much daylight between herself and the incumbent she has served as vice-president. But she has an opportunity to break with Biden on Gaza in these last months of the campaign – to show strength and resolve internationally, to show deference to the interests of a key voter group, and to do the right thing. For all the tendency to cast Israel as a global exception, the truth is that Netanyahu’s style of governance – his bigotry, his corruption, his advancement of a violent and exclusionary nationalism – is part of a broader trend of far-right authoritarianism.It is the same trend that Harris aims to defeat in her campaign against Donald Trump. She has presented herself as a candidate on a mission to revive the liberal order, to protect democracy, to remake America into a country worthy of its global power, and to embody the principles of courage, justice and equality that make leaders worthy of following. She has a chance to show that she means it.

      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 238 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      The US won’t run for another term on UN human rights council. Israel is likely why | Kenneth Roth

      by

      Something unusual happened this week at the UN: the US government decided not to run for a second term on the human rights council. Taking a year off is mandatory after a country serves two three-year terms, but the Biden administration chose to bow out after a single term. That is extremely unusual. What happened?Various rationales are circulating, but one, in my view, looms large: Israel. Or more to the point, Joe Biden’s refusal to suspend or condition the massive US arms sales and military aid to Israel as its military bombs and starves the Palestinian civilians of Gaza.The election for the 47-member human rights council in Geneva is conducted by the 193-member UN general assembly in New York. The balloting would have provided a rare opportunity for the world’s governments to vote on US complicity in Israeli war crimes. The US could have lost. The Biden administration seems to have calculated that it was better to withdraw voluntarily than to face the prospect of such a shameful repudiation.To understand that rationale, one must understand the dynamics of the human rights council election. The council was created in 2006 to replace the old UN commission on human rights. The commission had become a collection of repressive governments that joined it, not to advance human rights but to undermine them. They routinely voted to protect themselves and their ilk.The new council introduced a device that was supposed to avoid that travesty – competitive elections. Rather than the backroom deals that had populated the old commission with the dictators and tyrants of the world, the UN’s five regional groups would each propose slates of candidates on which the full UN membership would vote. The idea was that highly abusive governments could be rejected.View image in fullscreenFor the first few years, it worked. Each year, Human Rights Watch and its allies would single out the most inappropriate candidate for the council, and each year they would either withdraw their candidacy (Syria, Iraq) or lose (Belarus, Azerbaijan, Sri Lanka). Even Russia was defeated, in 2016, as its aircraft were bombing Syrian civilians in eastern Aleppo. It lost again in 2023 as it was pummeling Ukrainian civilians.It worked this year as well, when the general assembly for the second time rejected Saudi Arabia, given its murder of hundreds of Ethiopian migrants trying to enter from Yemen, its not-so-distant bombing of Yemeni civilians, its repression of dissidents including women’s rights activists and its brazen murder of Jamal Khashoggi.But to avoid that embarrassment, the regional groups began gaming the system. Many started to propose the same number of candidates as openings, effectively depriving the General Assembly of a choice. That’s how the likes of Burundi, Eritrea and Sudan hold council seats. Sometimes there were still competitive slates – Saudi Arabia lost this year because there were six governments seeking five seats for the Asia-Pacific region – but uncompetitive slates have become the norm.Even the western group, despite its ostensible support for an effective council, usually offers uncompetitive slates. The explanation typically offered is that western governments don’t want to bother with the need to lobby the 193 members of the general assembly for support. But that left western governments in no position to press other regions to present competitive slates. The council suffered for their diplomatic laziness.This year, something seems to have gone wrong with this cozy if detrimental practice. In the election this week, the western group had three seats to fill. Iceland, Spain and Switzerland had all put their hats in the ring, and the United States was expected to seek renewal of its term that was coming to an end. Three years ago, when a similar possibility emerged of four western candidates for three positions, Washington persuaded Italy to withdraw, allowing it to run unopposed.But this year, by all appearances, none of the other three Western candidates were eager to abandon their quest. That could have reflected the possibility that Donald Trump would win the US presidential election next month. In 2018, he notoriously relinquished the US seat on the council to protest its criticism of Israel. Iceland, Spain and Switzerland must have wondered: why defer to the US candidacy if Trump may soon nullify?View image in fullscreenThe Biden administration could have run anyway. After all, why not let the nations of the world choose the best three of the four candidates, as was originally supposed to happen? Instead, it bowed out. Yes, maybe it was just being nice – to Iceland, which assumed its seat when Trump abandoned it; to Switzerland, the host of the council; but to Spain? The Spanish government is one of Europe’s most vocal defenders of Palestinian rights. And Washington is ordinarily not reluctant to throw its weight around on behalf of Israel.It is rare that the UN general assembly has the chance to vote on the US government’s conduct. A competitive vote for the UN human rights council would have provided such an opportunity. Given widespread outrage at Israeli war crimes in Gaza – and at Biden’s refusal to use the enormous leverage of US arms sales and military aid to stop it – that vote could easily have resulted in an overwhelming repudiation of the Biden administration. Rather than face the possibility of a humiliating reprimand, the US government withdrew its candidacy.These events show again how devastating Biden’s support for Israel has been for the cause of human rights. By virtue of its diplomatic and economic power, the US government can be an important force for human rights. Other than on Israel, its presence on the council has generally helped the defense of human rights.But US credibility, already compromised by Washington’s close alliances with the repressive likes of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, has been profoundly undermined by Biden’s aiding and abetting of Israeli war crimes in Gaza. With Biden seemingly constitutionally unable to change, the defense of human rights is taking a hit.That doesn’t mean an end to that defense. The human rights council functioned well despite Trump’s withdrawal. Without the baggage of Washington’s ideological animosity, Latin American democracies led a successful effort to condemn Venezuela. Tiny Iceland secured condemnation of the mass summary executions spawned by the “drug war” of former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte, whom Trump had embraced.But it is a sad state of affairs when, rather than join the frontline defense of human rights at a time of severe threat – in Russia, Ukraine, China, Sudan, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Iran and elsewhere – the Biden administration has gone sulking from Geneva back to Washington. It says it won’t run again for the council until 2028.

      Kenneth Roth was executive director of Human Rights Watch from 1993 to 2022. He is now a visiting professor at Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs More

    • 163 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Western leaders’ silence about Israel’s atrocities gives free rein to Netanyahu | Letters

      by

      Owen Jones speaks for many of us (What atrocity would Israel have to commit for our leaders to break their silence?, 3 October). Joe Biden, Keir Starmer and other western leaders have responded to Israel’s actions by repeatedly stating that they stand with Israel and its right to defend itself. They have been quick to vociferously condemn those who threaten or attack Israel, but silent on the atrocities Israel inflicts on tens of thousands of innocent civilians in neighbouring countries. Benjamin Netanyahu has interpreted this silence as permission to pursue his strategy without effective censure or sanction.Therefore the question remains of whether these political leaders are complicit in the killing of thousands of innocent civilians, the creation of millions of refugees and the destruction of towns and cities. Like many others, I yearn to see brave political leadership willing to speak out and challenge Israel’s right to act without adherence to fundamental humanitarian rights and principles of international law. Without such a voice being heard, there will be no end to this humanitarian tragedy.Peter RiddleWirksworth, Derbyshire More