More stories

  • in

    Dancing and Jumping Over Fire, Iranians Use Holiday to Defy Rules

    Large crowds packed the streets to celebrate the tradition of Chaharshanbeh Suri. Iran has banned dancing in public, which has also been a way to protest.Iranians have looked for opportunities in recent months to display defiance against the rules of the clerical government. In Tuesday night’s annual fire festival, many found a chance.Across Iran, thousands of men and women packed the streets as they danced wildly to music and jumped joyfully over large bonfires, according to videos on social media and interviews with Iranians. The police said the crowds were so large in Tehran and other cities that traffic came to a standstill for many hours and commuters had difficulty reaching public transportation, according to Iranian news reports.Dancing, especially for men and women together, is banned in public in Iran and has long been a form of protest.In many places, the gatherings turned political, with crowds chanting, “Freedom, freedom, freedom,” “Death to the dictator” and “Get lost, clerics,” according to videos and interviews with participants. In the city of Rasht in northern Iran, a crowd booed security officers who drove by in motorcycles, videos showed.A man in Tehran celebrating Chaharshanbeh Suri. This year, the celebration became another example of how many Iranians have moved away from the ruling clerics.Arash Khamooshi for The New York TimesIranians were celebrating the ancient Persian tradition of Chaharshanbeh Suri before the coming new year, Nowruz, which is on the first day of spring. In a ritual on the eve of the last Wednesday of the year, people jump over fire to cleanse the spirit from malaise of the old year and take on the glow of the flames in preparation for the new year.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Biden vs. Putin Over the War in Ukraine

    More from our inbox:Promoting Known Lies at Fox NewsDon Lemon’s Comment About WomenMake Election Day a HolidayA Gap in U.S.-Philippine History Daniel Berehulak/The New York TimesDmitry Astakhov/Sputnik, via ReutersTo the Editor:Re “Putin Pulls Back From Nuclear Arms Treaty, Signaling Sharper Break With West” (nytimes.com, Feb. 21):In a major speech to the Russian people on Tuesday, Vladimir Putin said Russia was suspending its participation in the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty. Under this key treaty, both the U.S. and Russia are permitted to conduct inspections of each other’s weapons sites.Mr. Putin’s threat is an apparent attempt to scare the U.S. into reducing or suspending our arms and monetary support to Ukraine. He knows that his huge nuclear arsenal cannot be unleashed without provoking a potential nuclear Armageddon that could ultimately destroy Russia and end his regime.Nevertheless, he has long tried to use his nuclear cache as a “sword of Damocles,” to dissuade the U.S. from providing Ukraine with arms that could be used to inflict damage directly upon the Russian homeland.Mr. Putin’s bombast will not deter President Biden. As the president’s dramatic visit to Kyiv on Monday demonstrated so vividly and so powerfully, he stands unequivocally with Ukraine, and his personal support and commitment to Ukraine remain undiminished. The American people’s commitment to the Ukrainian cause may not be quite as robust, and that is why the president’s visit is so symbolically important to help boost our national resolve to stay the course.Ken DerowSwarthmore, Pa.To the Editor:Re “Long, Risky Night for Biden on Way to a Besieged Kyiv” (front page, Feb. 21):The best form of leadership is that of leading by example. President Biden’s visit to Kyiv was both an act of courage and an action that spoke more loudly and eloquently than any speech could have about the United States’ support for Ukraine.Charles R. Cronin Jr.Hempstead, N.Y.To the Editor:Re “The U.S. Can’t Go ‘Wobbly’ on Ukraine,” by David French (column, Feb. 20):I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. French’s statement: “On the war’s anniversary it’s time for a concerted effort to persuade Americans of a single idea: We should support Ukraine as much as it takes, as long as it takes, until the Russian military suffers a decisive, unmistakable defeat.”Mr. French lays out all the arguments for staying the course. The similarities between this conflict and the beginning of World War II are too obvious to ignore.The megalomaniac Vladimir Putin must not be allowed to wreak the havoc that his blood brother Hitler unleashed. To withdraw support now would be an incredible mistake that would lead to even more bloodshed. Remember Neville Chamberlain.Bill GottdenkerMountainside, N.J.To the Editor:David French and the rest of us need to stare one fact in the face: As long as Russia has nuclear weapons available for use (even starting small), we cannot “win” the war in Ukraine. We used them; why do we think that the Kremlin would not?Mr. French believes that it is an empty threat: Nuclear powers “rattle the nuclear saber to deter an effective response.”How myopic can we be, especially when pushing the line that Vladimir Putin is a madman? If we can’t think straight, why do we think Mr. Putin can?Tom RoeperAmherst, Mass.Promoting Known Lies at Fox NewsTo the Editor:Re “Fox Stars Voiced Voter Fraud Doubts” (Business, Feb. 17):Internal Fox News text messages showing that Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, urged on by Fox management, continued to promote known lies about the election in order to compete with Newsmax and protect profits shows these individuals and their network for what they are. A greedy and despicable operation that is willing to lie to its gullible audience to make money, knowing full well that the lies were fanning the flames of insurrection, violence and distrust of American democracy.The advertisers who continue to support them are not worthy of our business.David S. ElkindGreenwich, Conn.Don Lemon’s Comment About Women Mike Coppola/Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “CNN Anchor Is Rebuked for Remarks on Women” (Business, Feb. 18):Don Lemon, CNN’s morning-show anchor, has been widely criticized for his assertion that Nikki Haley, the 51-year-old Republican presidential candidate, “isn’t in her prime.”When challenged by his female co-anchors, he replied: “I’m just saying what the facts are. Google it.”So I did. The first hit says “in your prime” is an idiom that means “in the best, most successful, most productive stage,” so clearly Nikki Haley is in fact in her prime.There continues to be rampant discrimination against women in the workplace not only with respect to compensation, but also with respect to appearance.“Lookism” — the importance of appearing youthful — hurts women far more than men. In an AARP poll, nearly two-thirds of women age 50 and older report age discrimination.Mr. Lemon’s comments underscore the need for continued workplace training on implicit bias, with the goal of promoting a culture of meritocracy. Effective leadership comes from people of all ages, all genders and all races.Kathleen McCartneyNorthampton, Mass.The writer is the president of Smith College.Make Election Day a Holiday David Zalubowski/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “Washington Would Hate Presidents’ Day,” by Alexis Coe (Opinion guest essay, Feb. 20):Ms. Coe’s persuasive criticism of Presidents’ Day provides an additional argument for a vital reform. Subtract Presidents’ Day from the list of federal holidays and add Election Day — perhaps restyled as Democracy Day.Many other countries make national elections a holiday from work obligations, thus significantly expanding citizen participation in voting. Let’s do the same here.Now placed close to Election Day, Veterans Day could be moved to February to balance the calendar, preserving a good reason for a holiday break in February, while giving citizens a federal holiday to vote in November without adding yet another holiday to the calendar.George Washington would likely smile from Mount Rushmore at the change. After all, he was a veteran too!Eric W. OrtsPhiladelphiaThe writer is a professor of legal studies and business ethics at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.A Gap in U.S.-Philippine HistoryFerdinand Marcos Sr. and President Richard Nixon in 1969 in Manila.Bettmann/Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “The Curse of the Philippines’ Geography,” by Gina Apostol (Opinion guest essay, Feb. 8), responding to the news that the U.S. military would expand its presence in that country:I totally understand where Ms. Apostol’s opinion piece comes from. I remember how the U.S. (particularly under Richard Nixon) looked the other way regarding Ferdinand Marcos Sr.’s authoritarian rule. But she does not readily acknowledge the other side of the coin regarding U.S. behavior toward the Philippines.During World War II, many U.S. servicemen lost their lives trying to remove the occupation of the Japanese military from their islands.I believe that U.S. foreign policy under President Biden is correct and necessary in trying to push aside China’s influence in Asia. And his interest in doing so can hardly be called an occupation. It is called mutual self-interest.Paula TwillingEvanston, Ill. More

  • in

    Jingle Bell Time Is a Swell Time to Decide About a 2024 Campaign

    A host of Democrats and Republicans say they’ll discuss running for office with their families, weighing their political futures with eggnog, board games and maybe a wise uncle.For everything in politics, there is a season. A period of primaries to winnow the field. Party conventions in the summertime. The Labor Day kickoff of the general election.To such well-known mileposts of the political calendar, there must be added one more: talking with your family over the holidays about your next big campaign.A Who’s Who of American politics has said recently, when pressed if they would run for federal office in 2024, that they would hash it out with family members during the next two weeks. Democrat or Republican, whether testing a bid for Senate or aspiring to the White House, politicians have deflected, when asked if they’re jumping into a race, by resorting to nearly identical language.“It’ll be a discussion that I have with my family over the holidays,” Senator Jon Tester of Montana told “Meet the Press” when asked if he would seek re-election in 2024 to one of the Democratic Party’s most vulnerable seats.“I will spend the upcoming holidays praying and talking with my wife, family and close friends,” Representative Jim Banks of Indiana, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, said about a possible run for an open Senate seat.And Representative Ruben Gallego of Arizona, when asked on MSNBC if he would mount a 2024 challenge to Senator Kyrsten Sinema, who left the Democratic Party to become an independent, replied, “I’m going to listen to my family over the holidays — I have a big Latino family that’s going to come in over Christmas.”Everyone with a weighty political decision to make, it seems, is waiting for the end of the year to glean the opinions of a spouse, a wise uncle or a quixotic adolescent, solicited over mugs of eggnog or while trimming the tree with carols curated by Alexa. Political family summits are planned during holiday gatherings by President Biden as well as by potential Republican presidential hopefuls including Mike Pence, Nikki Haley and Larry Hogan. So many discussions are to take place that it sounds as if some family get-togethers will turn into mini-Iowa caucuses around the yule log.Republican and Democratic strategists said that candidates who say they’re waiting for the holidays might be dodging questions about campaigns they’ve already decided on but aren’t ready to announce — or might be genuinely seeking buy-in from loved ones.“Campaigns are absolutely grueling and not just for the candidates,” Rebecca Katz, a Democratic strategist, said. “It’s absolutely a real thing to do the gut check with the whole family and make sure everyone knows what they’re signing up for.”Some of the toughest conversations, she added, involve relatives in one particular age group: “Teenagers hate their parents campaigning.”The Aftermath of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsCard 1 of 6A moment of reflection. More

  • in

    Deadly Shooting at Israeli Checkpoint Sets Jerusalem on Edge

    Surging violence claimed the lives of four Palestinians and an Israeli soldier over the weekend, raising tensions on the eve of a Jewish holiday.JERUSALEM — Israeli security forces on Sunday said that they were still searching for the gunman who carried out a deadly attack late Saturday at a checkpoint in East Jerusalem and that three Palestinians had been arrested in connection with the shooting.The attack, which left an Israeli soldier dead and a security guard severely wounded, came as tensions surged before the Jewish holiday of Sukkot, when worshipers and pilgrims pour into the city. Israeli forces were put on high alert across the city ahead of the holiday, which begins at sundown on Sunday evening and lasts a week.The attack on Saturday night at the checkpoint near the Shuafat refugee camp, on the northeastern outskirts of Jerusalem, occurred hours after a deadly Israeli arrest raid and armed clashes in the city of Jenin, in the occupied West Bank, during which two Palestinians were killed.The recent spasm of violence gripping Israel and the West Bank is the worst those areas have seen in years. The Israeli military has been carrying out an intensified campaign of arrest raids, particularly in and around the northern West Bank cities of Jenin and Nablus, after a spate of terrorist attacks in Israeli cities that killed 19 people in the spring.The military raids, which take place almost nightly, are often deadly. At least 100 Palestinians have been killed so far this year. The Israeli authorities say that many of those were militants killed during clashes or while trying to perpetrate attacks, but some Palestinian protesters and uninvolved civilians have also been killed.The high death toll in the West Bank has spurred more disaffected Palestinian men to take up arms and try to carry out revenge attacks, according to analysts. The resurgence of loosely formed, armed Palestinian militias in the northern West Bank is increasingly reminiscent of the chaos there during the second intifada, or Palestinian uprising, which broke out in 2000 and lasted more than four years.The new militancy comes after years without any political progress toward a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and is being fueled by splits from and divisions within Fatah, the secular party that controls the Palestinian Authority, the body that administers parts of the West Bank.Israel captured the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 war and then annexed East Jerusalem in a move that was never internationally recognized. The Palestinians claim the West Bank and East Jerusalem as part of a future Palestinian state.Adding to the frictions is Palestinian frustration with the authority’s leaders, who are widely viewed as inept and corrupt, and whose security coordination with the Israeli military is decried by many Palestinians as collaboration with the enemy. Power struggles are also at play, as Palestinian factions jockey for a position to succeed Mahmoud Abbas, the authority’s 87-year-old president.Israeli armored vehicles during a raid on Saturday by the Israeli military at a refugee camp near the West Bank city of Jenin.Alaa Badarneh/EPA, via ShutterstockHamas, the Islamist militant group that dominates the Palestinian coastal enclave of Gaza, and Fatah’s main rival, has been encouraging the armed groups in the West Bank in an effort to destabilize the area. It is expected to continue to do so in the run-up to the Israeli election, which is set to take place on Nov. 1 — the country’s fifth in under four years.The United Nations special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, Tor Wennesland, said in a statement late Saturday that he was “alarmed by the deteriorating security situation,” citing the rise in armed clashes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.“The mounting violence in the occupied West Bank is fueling a climate of fear, hatred and anger,” he said, adding, “It is crucial to reduce tensions immediately to open the space for crucial initiatives aimed at establishing a viable political horizon.”The attack on the checkpoint occurred shortly after 9 p.m. on Saturday, when a man emerged from a vehicle, shot at the security personnel then fled on foot in the direction of the Shuafat refugee camp.The military identified the soldier who was killed, a female member of a combat battalion of the military police, as Sgt. Noa Lazar, 18. She was promoted in rank to sergeant from corporal after her death.The Israeli military raid on the Jenin refugee camp earlier Saturday took place, unusually, in broad daylight. The target, who was eventually arrested, was a member of the Islamic Jihad militant group, according to the military, which also said he had been released from prison in 2020 and had since been involved in shooting attacks against Israeli soldiers.The military said that dozens of Palestinians hurled explosives and fired shots at soldiers during the raid, and that the soldiers responded with live fire.The Palestinian Health Ministry identified the two Palestinians who were killed as Mahmoud al-Sous, 18, and Ahmad Daraghmeh, 16. Two more Palestinian teenagers were killed by Israeli troops in separate incidents in the West Bank the day before.Human rights groups have accused Israel of using excessive force in quelling unrest in the West Bank. Nabil Abu Rudeineh, the spokesman for Mr. Abbas, the Palestinian president, blamed Israel for the escalation and warned that it would push the situation toward “an explosion and a point of no return, which will have devastating consequences for all.”The prime minister of Israel, Yair Lapid, who is running for election against former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said on Sunday that Israel would “not rest” until the “heinous murderers” of Sergeant Lazar were brought to justice. Mr. Netanyahu said he was “holding the hands of the security forces operating in the field.” More

  • in

    A Thanksgiving Myth Debunked: People Aren’t Fighting About Politics

    With millions of Americans choosing not to visit loved ones this Thanksgiving out of caution over the coronavirus, a lot of small rituals will get passed over in the process.No shared turkey dinners, no football-watching parties in the TV room, no wondering aloud what stuffing is actually made of. And none of those famous, knock-down-drag-out fights with your relatives over politics. Right?Sort of. Those storied fights might never have been such a big part of the tradition to begin with. Like many aspects of the story that this holiday commemorates, brutal family infighting over politics is more myth than reality.“I’m Italian, so my family fights about anything and everything,” said Matthew Dean, 34, a construction project manager living in Pittsburgh. “They can agree with each other and still be arguing.”Mr. Dean is a Republican who supports President Trump, while other members of his family, including his father, dislike the president. He said they’re usually able to disagree without being too disagreeable.“From an outsider’s perspective, it would be arguing, but it never ruined any family time together,” Mr. Dean said, describing the raucous scene at past Thanksgiving dinners. “I think we have a greater sense of the bonds that hold us together as family and friends. And we don’t allow the politics to get above that.”Two years ago, a survey by The Associated Press and NORC, an independent research group at the University of Chicago, found that just 9 percent of American parents with adolescent or young-adult children reported having had a holiday gathering ruined by family disagreements over politics. Online, it was a different story: The same parents were twice as likely to say that they had unfriended or blocked a family member for political reasons.“The vast majority of Americans have no interest in discussing politics,” Samara Klar, a professor of political science at the University of Arizona, said in an interview. “Politics is important when it arises, but for most people it’s not something that they are excited to bring up at dinner.”For most Americans, politics isn’t anywhere near their favorite conversation topic. Dr. Klar said that while studies have shown that American parents would generally prefer to see their children marry someone of the same political persuasion, her own research went a level further — and found that the even stronger desire was for their children to marry someone who simply won’t force them to discuss politics all that much.“They just don’t want somebody who talks about politics all the time,” she said. “Partisan identity will always fall dead last,” she added. “Behind their gender, family role, their nationality, their race.”As a result, if coming together at the holidays means dealing with an outspoken relative of a different political stripe, the most common response may simply be flight — not fight.A study of Thanksgiving diners in 2016 matched up anonymized smartphone-location data with precinct-level voting information, and found that when relatives visited each other from areas with opposite political leanings, their meals together tended to be measurably shorter.This tracks with a separate study from 2016, “Political Chameleons: An Exploration of Conformity in Political Discussions,” finding that people would often prefer to avoid talking politics over openly disagreeing about them.“If you have somebody who’s really vocal politically, they’re going to dominate the discussion,” said Yanna Krupnikov, a Stony Brook University political scientist who has collaborated with Dr. Klar. “You’re not necessarily going to have people fight with them — you’re more likely to have people agree politely and just leave a little early.”Over the past few decades, as polarization has grown, families have in fact become more politically homogeneous.Kent Tedin, a professor of political science at the University of Houston, cited research he has done in recent years picking up on data compiled since the 1960s by Kent Jennings at the University of Michigan. It found that married, heterosexual couples are now far more likely to be politically aligned than they were 50 years ago — or even a couple decades ago.Dr. Klar said that her research has indicated that this trend is driven in part by the fact that, since the feminist movement’s second wave in the mid-20th century, women have grown more directly engaged in politics — and have become more likely to put a priority on finding a husband with whom they agree politically.The same thing goes for parents and their children. On matters of partisanship and political views — including a measurement that academics call the “racial resentment scale” — young people are far more likely to hold similar views to their parents than they were in the mid-1970s, or even in the 1990s.As a result, Dr. Tedin said, at the Thanksgiving table, “if there is a disagreement, almost anybody in the nuclear family — mom, dad and the kids — is going to be on one side, and the cousins are going to be on the other side.”But mostly, they’re likely to tiptoe around one another. “Polarized politics increases avoidance within families,” he said. “You might think polarized politics means they’re going to be fighting at Thanksgiving, but no — it’s the reverse. Polarized politics increases the pressure to avoid conflict at the holiday.”The inclination to avoid conflict doesn’t necessarily mean that disagreement is inevitable if the conversation does turn to politics. Matthew Levendusky, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who studies political polarization, said that when those kinds of conflicts do come up, they aren’t necessarily likely to become hostile. And whether hard or easy, Dr. Levendusky added, those conversations are fundamental to the functioning of a democracy — especially in a time when social media and cable news often play up each party’s most extreme elements.In 2016, Dr. Levendusky published a study showing that people tended to vastly overestimate the differences between the two parties. “We asked people where their position was, and where they thought the average Republican and Democratic positions were,” he said. “Basically, they thought the parties were twice as far apart as they are in reality, on a wide variety of issues.”Now he is at work on a book about how people with differing perspectives might overcome their political animus. Simply talking to one another, he said, is essential to bridging the divide — and it’s often not as painful as people expect it to be. That’s because most Americans are not deeply ideological, so political disagreements are not terribly high-stakes for them. In completing the research for the book, he and his collaborators convened roughly 500 study participants from across the political spectrum, and invited them to talk about politics.Dr. Levendusky found that participants were pleasantly surprised by the experience: “A number of people came up to me afterward and said, ‘I wasn’t sure I was going to like this, but I found all these people who thought like me, even if we weren’t on the same political side.’”Still, for many families, the primary goal this holiday is to find anything other than politics to talk about.Antonette Iverson, 27, said that her extended family in Detroit would be celebrating Thanksgiving remotely this year, saying grace over a Zoom call and then retreating to separate holiday meals. She doesn’t expect anyone would want to talk much about politics even if they were getting together, she said, adding that her family is mostly of a like mind about the presidential election anyway.“I don’t think there needs to be a discussion,” she said. “We’re all pretty exhausted with the situation.”Kathleen Gray contributed reporting. More