Israel-Gaza War (2023- )

Subterms

    More stories

    • 63 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Israel’s Moral and Political Dilemmas

      by

      More from our inbox:The Frankfurt Book Fair’s Cancellation of a Palestinian AuthorRegulating AirlinesCount Presidential Ballot Separately Pool photo by Miriam Alster, via ReutersTo the Editor:Re “Israel Is About to Make a Terrible Mistake,” by Thomas L. Friedman (column, Oct. 22):Mr. Friedman’s arguments might be valid if dealing with a sane adversary. But nowhere does he mention the deep visceral hatred of Hamas and associated groups toward Israel. He does not acknowledge the euphoria of the Hamas leaders and their supporters after the attack on Israel, and the hysterical vengeance sought by the millions of pro-Palestinians.I am left-wing, and I certainly do not share any ideology with the right-wing settlers. But I do totally empathize with the rage currently felt here in Israel. It is time to “take the gloves off.”We do not intend to be the victims of the destruction of Israel (Hamas’s goal), and the subjects of Mr. Friedman’s future tearful obituary that he would write “the day after.”E. WinerTel AvivTo the Editor:Thomas L. Friedman underestimates the barbarism (his word) of Hamas. He claims that a two-state solution needs to be part of Israel’s retaliation. It was always apparent that not long after the Oct. 7 massacre Israel would lose the public relations war. The horror would be news for only a few days. Social and mainstream media would move to the next series of headlines, the unfortunate and horrific consequences for the average Palestinian in the subsequent war.While Gaza and the West Bank are inextricably linked, contending that the response to the barbarism must be accompanied by a solution to a problem that has been unresolved for ages is impractical and unrealistic.Hamas has no interest in a peaceful solution. Its antisemitic barbarism reaffirmed that it wants no state of Israel in any form.Alan MetzChapel Hill, N.C.To the Editor:Re “Do We Treat Palestinians as Lesser Victims?,” by Nicholas Kristof (column, Oct. 22):Mr. Kristof does not mention that Hamas hides in and underneath crowded civilian settings, including mosques, hospitals and schools. Israel does not deliberately target civilians. Hamas, on the other hand, purposefully targets Israeli civilians (and holds hostage Israeli babies, the elderly and everyone in between), and uses Gazan men, women and children as tactical pawns and human shields.In such a case, civilian casualties are tragically unavoidable. Mr. Kristof, I appreciate your reminder of the sanctity of human life, but how would you suggest Israel proceed when its enemy does not consider this a value? Indeed, it is Hamas who is putting Gazan civilians at risk.Bina WestrichTeaneck, N.J.To the Editor:In urging readers to reject the “hierarchy of human life” purportedly embedded in support for Israeli military action, Nicholas Kristof attacks a straw man. No serious defender of Israel’s response to the Oct. 7 massacres argues that the lives of Israeli children are worth more than those of Gazan children. To the contrary, they argue that a failure to destroy Hamas now — leaving it capable of and eager to repeat similar atrocities — would result in far more death, destruction and human misery (for both Israelis and Gazans) than the admittedly terrible civilian costs of a full-scale Israeli incursion.And if we are calculating human costs, we had best consider the consequences of Mr. Kristof’s proposed policy: If democratic nations adopt a policy that terrorists who butcher innocents render themselves invulnerable by shielding behind a civilian population, it is not just Israeli or Gazan children who will suffer. It is everyone’s children.Yishai SchwartzWashingtonTo the Editor:Re “Hamas Bears the Blame for Every Death in This War,” by Bret Stephens (column, Oct. 17):Imagine if Hamas, since winning control of Gaza, had put its resources into building up the community with schools, hospitals and other institutions that uplifted the Palestinian people! Hamas would be considered “heroes” in the eyes of most of the world and its leadership would have attained political legitimacy.But, no, instead it is intent on depravity and destruction to the bitter end.Marc BloomPrinceton, N.J.The Frankfurt Book Fair’s Cancellation of a Palestinian AuthorAdania ShibliFranziska RothenbühlerTo the Editor:Re “A Chill Has Been Cast Over the Book World,” by Pamela Paul (column, Oct. 19):Reading Ms. Paul’s forceful condemnation of the Frankfurt Book Fair’s decision to cancel a celebration recognizing a Palestinian author, I waited in vain for her to address one indispensable fact: Frankfurt is in Germany, a country that, for obvious reasons, has assumed a special role in defending Israel and protecting Jews around the world.For example, the German penal code prohibits public denial of the Holocaust and its Nationality Act mandates restoration of citizenship for any Jew whose forebears lost their citizenship during the Nazi regime.Contrary to Ms. Paul’s claim that it is a “false notion that there is a wrong time for certain authors or novels and that now is not the time for Palestinian literature,” the days following a Palestinian terrorist attack that resulted in the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust are precisely the wrong time for a German book fair to celebrate a novel excoriating Israel.Adania Shibli’s views are important and should be heard in Germany and elsewhere — just not in Frankfurt right now. Ms. Paul does a grave disservice to German Jews living and dead by not acknowledging the tragic history underlying the Frankfurt Book Fair’s decision.Andrew D. HermanChevy Chase, Md.Regulating Airlines Carter Johnston for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “A Frayed System, and 131 Lives Put in Jeopardy” (front page, Oct. 15):The article states, “The safety net that underpins air travel in America is fraying, exposing passengers to potential tragedies.”The blame seems to be focused on government air traffic controllers. They share some of it, but they are only part of a much larger system including aircraft technology, airport design, aircrew and airspace management.But there is another problem rarely talked about: competition. Since airlines were deregulated in 1978, the industry has seen bankruptcies, deterioration of comfort and service, delays and congestion, complexity in pricing and fares, and stagnation in aviation systems planning and investment.A strong argument could be made that airline competition has not worked as expected, and even worked counterproductively. A new airline regulatory program may be called for — one that combines the public and private sectors in a jointly managed and financed national aviation system with strong oversight in safety standards, infrastructure investment and passenger consumer benefits that are missing under the current deregulation.Matthew G. AnderssonChicagoThe writer was the founder and C.E.O. of Indigo Airlines and is a former aviation consultant.Count Presidential Ballot Separately Lukas VerstraeteTo the Editor:Re “Counting Ballots by Hand Ensures Only Chaos,” by Jessica Huseman (Opinion guest essay, Oct. 20):Ms. Huseman is absolutely right that counting lengthy ballots by hand would be a nightmare. But we could reduce the growing suspicion that computers can’t count our votes properly if our presidential elections were administered separately from all the other races on Election Day.If there were paper ballots just for the presidency, they could be counted in one long night, as is done in many European parliamentary elections, in which voters only cast one vote for a party.Mark WestonSarasota, Fla.The writer is the author of “The Runner-Up Presidency: The Elections That Defied America’s Popular Will.” More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Tim Scott Opposes Package Tying Aid to Israel and Ukraine

      by

      The South Carolina senator and 2024 presidential candidate said a “longer process” was needed to determine how much aid to send to Ukraine, while Israel demanded immediate attention.Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina said on Sunday that he would not support a request from President Biden to package aid for Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan and funding for border security, even though he has endorsed U.S. spending for each of those purposes.“I believe that leveraging the challenges in the war with Israel to get more assistance for Ukraine at that level of $60 billion is too much, and we need to have a single focus on bringing Congress together behind the support for Israel,” Mr. Scott, a 2024 Republican candidate, said on “This Week” on ABC News.At first, he indicated that his objection was mainly to the possibility of delaying aid to Israel by combining it with funding on which Congress is more divided. He said that he believed aid to Israel alone “would pass overnight,” and that a “splintered” package would be harder to pass.But when the interviewer, Jonathan Karl, asked whether he would actually vote against the package if it came to the Senate floor, Mr. Scott said he would.“I will in the current construct,” he said, adding that a “longer process” was needed to debate how much aid to send to Ukraine. “Israel is at the beginning of a long, protracted war,” he said. “I think we are much better off, better served as a nation, focusing our resources and our attention immediately on Israel, and continuing to provide the kind of level of accountability and responsibility the American people want to see as it relates to the resources for Ukraine.”His campaign did not elaborate on his comments, and pointed to a CNN interview in which he said largely the same thing, criticizing the package for including “more money for Ukraine than it does for Israel.”The request that Mr. Biden submitted to Congress on Friday included about $61 billion for Ukraine; $14 billion for Israel; $7 billion for Taiwan and other Indo-Pacific allies; $9 billion for humanitarian aid in Ukraine, Israel and Gaza; and $14 billion for border security in the United States.Mr. Scott is not the only Republican to object to putting those pieces in one package, an effort by the Biden administration to pressure lawmakers who oppose funding Ukraine to support the proposal in the interest of funding Israel, and vice versa.Vivek Ramaswamy, another Republican presidential candidate, denounced the proposal at a campaign event in Iowa on Saturday. Mr. Ramaswamy has long opposed aid to Ukraine, and he said at the event that Israel’s military objectives in Gaza were unclear and that helping Israel would risk a broader conflict in the Middle East.But Mr. Scott’s rejection of the package is notable because he is on the record as supporting every component.He has been one of the most outspoken Republican candidates in favor of helping Ukraine repel Russia’s invasion: He accused Mr. Biden last year of “waiting too long to provide too little support,” and he has described a Ukrainian victory as a matter of American interest, arguing that it would discourage a Russian incursion into NATO territory that would pull the United States into a wider war. He has endorsed sending weapons to Taiwan. And, in the same interview on Sunday in which he rejected the package, he called for funding to secure the southern border of the United States.Almost the entire Republican presidential field has endorsed military aid to Israel, but the candidates are divided on aid to Ukraine: In addition to Mr. Ramaswamy, former President Donald J. Trump and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida have said they want to cut it. Only a few, though, have voiced their positions on Mr. Biden’s proposal.Among them is former Vice President Mike Pence, who told NBC News on Sunday that he supported aid for Israel and Ukraine “together or separately.” More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Biden’s Handling of Israel War Could Change How Voters See Him, Strategists Say

      by

      Plagued by low approval ratings, the president has projected himself as a world leader. Strategists warn, however, that his re-election may depend more on domestic issues like the economy.When President Biden addressed the nation from the Oval Office this week, he presented himself as a world leader during a moment of peril amid wars in Ukraine and Israel.The speech was only the second time that Mr. Biden has spoken in prime time from the Resolute Desk, and it came as he confronts a challenging re-election campaign weighed down by low approval ratings and lingering concern among Democrats about his fitness to seek a second term.Mr. Biden’s forceful proclamation of the nation’s leadership on the international stage since the Hamas attacks that killed more than 1,400 Israelis — he has given two major White House speeches and traveled to Tel Aviv to meet with local leaders and console grieving Israelis — has given Democrats hope that he can persuade skeptical voters to view him in a new light.But strategists from both parties said that even if Mr. Biden successfully steers his country through the latest international crisis, any political lift that he might enjoy could be short-lived. Perceptions of a bad economy have continued to drag down his re-election prospects, and domestic concerns historically supersede foreign policy in American presidential contests.President George H.W. Bush’s approval numbers jumped to roughly 90 percent in the spring of 1991 — more than twice what Mr. Biden registers now — after he led an international coalition in defeating Iraq when it invaded Kuwait.Mr. Bush’s aides thought his re-election the next year was all but certain. But he lost the White House to Bill Clinton 18 months later, defeated by voters’ concerns about the economy, the appeal of a more vigorous opponent and the most significant independent presidential candidate in a generation.“People were caught up in the good news and forgot that ‘it’s the economy, stupid,’” said Ron Kaufman, a longtime political aide to Mr. Bush, echoing a sign that was posted in the Clinton campaign headquarters in Little Rock, Ark., in 1992.American politics are also far more polarized now than they were 32 years ago, when Mr. Bush was at the peak of his popularity.President George H.W. Bush’s approval numbers jumped to roughly 90 percent in the spring of 1991 after the Persian Gulf war. He still lost re-election a year and a half later.Paul Hosefros/The New York TimesMr. Biden’s polling numbers have been mired in dangerous territory since he oversaw the chaotic American military withdrawal from Afghanistan. The enactment of popular legislation on infrastructure and renewable energy investments has done little to improve his popularity. A White House push to promote economic improvements under the banner of “Bidenomics” has done little to convince voters of its merits.“I don’t anticipate any long-term benefits politically,” Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of political history at Princeton University, said of Mr. Biden’s handling of the war in Israel. “We live in an era now where polarization is so deep that no matter what the magnitude of the crisis is, or the performance of the president, it’s not likely to make a difference.”Several voters interviewed on Friday were skeptical of Mr. Biden’s call to send $14 billion to help Israel — let alone another $60 billion for Ukraine.Samantha Moskowitz, 27, a psychology student at Georgia Gwinnett College in the Atlanta suburbs, said the prospect of sending billions to Israel and Ukraine “makes me anxious, especially where our economy is right now.”“I don’t love the idea that the money is being sent,” said Ms. Moskowitz, who did not vote for either Mr. Biden or Donald J. Trump in 2020 and said it was “too early to tell” if she would vote in 2024. “There is a need, but do we really need that significant amount?”She said she did not watch Mr. Biden’s Oval Office address on Thursday.About 20.3 million people watched Mr. Biden’s speech across 10 television networks, according to preliminary data from Nielsen. The total audience for the speech was certainly bigger, given that the Nielsen data does not capture some online viewing numbers.When Mr. Trump spoke about immigration from the Oval Office in January 2019, about 40 million people tuned in. Just over 27 million people watched Mr. Biden’s State of the Union speech in February.Stanley B. Greenberg, who was Mr. Clinton’s pollster in 1992, called Mr. Biden’s Oval Office address “a very important speech in terms of defining America’s security and bringing Iran and Russia to the forefront,” and predicted that it could help rally voters around the president and push Congress to pass his $106 billion international aid plan, which includes money for Ukraine and the Middle East.“Of course, a year from now, voters will be voting on the cost of living, the economy, the border, crime and other issues,” he said. “Foreign policy is rarely a voting determinant, but President Biden may be leading the attack on isolation and a new partisan choice on how we gain security.”The initial polling suggests that broad majorities of Americans endorse Mr. Biden’s staunch support for Israel. A Fox News poll found that 68 percent of voters sided with Israel, and 76 percent of voters in a Quinnipiac University poll said that supporting Israel was in the national interest of the United States.With the exception of 2004, when President George W. Bush confronted rising criticism about having led the nation into war against Iraq, no national election has been driven by foreign policy since the end of the Vietnam War.The nature of the presidential campaign could change if the conflict in Israel continues to dominate the news for weeks and months. Unlike the elder Mr. Bush after the 1991 Iraq war — which began and ended quickly with what at the time seemed a clear victory — Mr. Biden could be presenting himself as a wartime president through the course of his re-election bid, a prospect that also carries political risks.Mr. Biden’s support for sending military aid to Israel, even accompanied by gentle pleas to the country’s leaders for restraint, has alienated many on the left wing of his party, who point to a high Palestinian death toll in Gaza that is likely to rise as Israel presses its offensive.This week, thousands have marched on the Capitol amid a series of open letters — including one from a long roster of former presidential campaign staff members for Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts — demanding that Democratic lawmakers urge Mr. Biden to push for a cease-fire in Israel, which he is unlikely to do.The president has picked sides in a conflict over which he has little control. Most immediately, Mr. Biden faces the challenge of what he can do to secure the release of Americans being held hostage in the Gaza Strip. Hamas released two American hostages on Friday afternoon, and Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said that 10 more Americans had yet to be freed.Dr. Zelizer said, “I think the assumption should be that things will go south and there will be detrimental effects.” Referring to Mr. Biden and his administration, he added, “There’s assistance, but they don’t have real control over how this unfolds.”For all of those risks, these next few months may give Mr. Biden a window to shake up the contest in ways that could put him on firmer ground.“It gives him an opportunity to change and strengthen his image,” said Charles R. Black Jr., a strategist for the presidential campaigns of both Bushes and Ronald Reagan. “It gives him a chance to demonstrate his strength and also his knowledge.”Paul Begala, a Democratic consultant, said that this political moment could prompt voters to give Mr. Biden a second look. “The fear with an incumbent president is that voters write you off, they stop listening,” he said.“What’s the biggest thing about Biden?” Mr. Begala added. “Old. This gives him a chance to lean into it. I don’t think people are going to vote on how he does in Israel. But I think this can let them reframe the age problem. It is a way for people to look and say, maybe it’s good we have the old guy in there. He is steady and strong.”For Mr. Biden, an orderly handling of the crisis would be likely to buttress what is expected to be another dominant theme of his campaign if he finds himself running for a second time against Mr. Trump, with turmoil continuing among House Republicans as they seek to elect a speaker.“Hopefully the House chaos will calm down long before the election,” Mr. Black said. “But Trump is so ad hoc on foreign policy that it’s always chaos.”John Koblin More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      DeSantis Says He Would Cancel Student Visas of Hamas Sympathizers

      by

      At a G.O.P. candidate showcase in Iowa, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and his rivals repeatedly sought to one-up one another on support for Israel.In a competition of hawkish messages on Israel, Ron DeSantis pledged on Friday night to revoke the student visas of Hamas sympathizers if elected president, while Tim Scott said he would withhold Pell grants from universities that failed to stamp out antisemitism.At an Iowa showcase featuring most of the top Republican presidential contenders, the Florida governor and the South Carolina senator engaged in one-upmanship about who would best support Israel, America’s closest Middle East ally.With their focus on students and academic institutions, they repackaged a traditional line of attack for Republicans: that liberal college campuses foster “woke” extremism, which they said was now taking the form of anti-Israel expressions.“You see students demonstrating in our country in favor of Hamas,” Mr. DeSantis said. “Remember, some of them are foreigners.”Mr. DeSantis then warned that if he became president, “I’m canceling your visa and I’m sending you home.”His remarks, during a tailgate at a construction plant in Iowa City, echoed recent talking points of former President Donald J. Trump, the G.O.P. front-runner, and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who sent a letter to Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken this week urging him to rescind the visas of “Hamas sympathizers.”Mr. Trump, who did not attend the event, had issued a similar pledge to expel student sympathizers of Hamas.Tim Scott, a South Carolina senator, said he had sponsored a bill to deny Pell grants to colleges that failed to stamp out antisemitism.Jordan Gale for The New York TimesMr. Scott, who has been polling in the low single digits, said that he had already sponsored a bill — which he would sign if elected president — that would deny Pell grants to colleges and universities that shirk responsibility for condemning support for terrorist groups.By their inaction, he said, they were sending a message that “it’s OK to be anti-Israel.” He continued, “I say no.”At a town hall earlier on Friday in Cedar Rapids, Nikki Haley, a former ambassador to the United Nations under Mr. Trump, delivered a similar warning and accused some colleges and universities of promoting violence.“We have got to start connecting their government funding with how they manage hate,” she said. “Because when you do that, you are threatening someone’s life when you do that. That’s not freedom of speech.”Nikki Haley, a former South Carolina governor and ambassador to the United Nations under Mr. Trump, said Israel should wipe out Hamas.Jordan Gale for The New York TimesMs. Haley, who has been sparring with Mr. DeSantis over the Israel-Hamas conflict as she threatens to eclipse him in some polls, also spoke at the showcase on Friday night. The event was hosted by Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks, a Republican from a competitive district in Iowa. The state holds its first-in-the-nation presidential caucus in mid-January.At the event, Ms. Haley called for Israel to wipe out Hamas, a militant group backed by Iran.“Stop acting like it’s Sept. 10,” she said.But Vivek Ramaswamy, the biotech entrepreneur, struck a contrast with his G.O.P. rivals, calling for restraint toward an imminent ground invasion by Israel in Gaza. He said that Israel should heed the lessons of the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.“To what end?” he said.Mr. Scott took the opposite view.”I am sick and tired of people saying to Israel, ‘Settle down,’” he said.Jazmine Ulloa More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      DeSantis-Haley Rivalry Heats Up, With Attacks Focused on Israel

      by

      As they vie to be the race’s Trump alternative, the two Republican rivals have been trading barbs, zeroing in on each other’s response to the Israel-Hamas conflict.Once distant rivals in the 2024 presidential race, Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley are now locked in a heated battle to become the most viable Republican alternative to former President Donald J. Trump, seizing on the Israel-Hamas conflict to hurl broadsides at each other.In a flurry of mailers, online posts and media appearances this week, Mr. DeSantis, the governor of Florida, and Ms. Haley, the former governor of South Carolina and a United Nations ambassador under Mr. Trump, have feuded over their positions on U.S. humanitarian aid and accepting refugees as Israel prepares to invade Gaza.A super PAC backing Mr. DeSantis ran the first attack ad of the cycle this week, contrasting his tough talk on the issue with remarks from Ms. Haley urging empathy for the civilians thrust into the middle of the conflict. Mr. DeSantis himself has portrayed Ms. Haley as saying that Gazan refugees should be resettled in the United States, which she has not done.Ms. Haley’s campaign in turn has responded by blasting Mr. DeSantis for falsely describing her comments, firmly reiterating her opposition to resettling Gazan refugees in the United States and pointing to her rejection of displaced people from the Syrian civil war during the Obama administration. A super PAC backing Ms. Haley has rushed to cast Mr. DeSantis as desperate and bleeding donors.It is all part of a clash that has also been escalating behind the scenes, as the two camps have ramped up their pitches to top donors and endorsers. With less than 100 days before the Iowa caucuses, both sides know they are running out of time to consolidate support in a crowded race that has largely been dominated by Mr. Trump.“We are three months away from caucus,” Ms. Haley told voters on Friday at a town hall in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, where she did not name Mr. DeSantis. “We can do this — without question.”Until recently, Ms. Haley had mostly been ignored by her rivals in the 2024 presidential race. But after two strong debate performances, Ms. Haley is heading into the third debate with a boost of momentum. In polls of the early voting states New Hampshire and South Carolina, she has surpassed Mr. DeSantis as the runner-up to Mr. Trump. And according to her campaign, she entered October with significantly more cash on hand that can be spent on the 2024 primary — $9.1 million to his roughly $5 million — even as he out-raised her overall.Who Has Qualified for the Third G.O.P. Debate?Just three candidates appear to have qualified so far for the third Republican debate on Nov. 8. Donald J. Trump is not likely to participate.With that upward climb, she has come under more scrutiny. After the second debate last month, the former president attacked her as a “birdbrain” on social media, and Ms. Haley accused his campaign of sending a birdcage and birdseed to her hotel.Though Mr. DeSantis has drawn attacks from his rivals on the debate stage — including some from Ms. Haley — he has largely avoided initiating heated exchanges, a stance in keeping with his long-running insistence that the primary is a two-candidate contest between him and Mr. Trump. But Ms. Haley’s surge — and her decision to focus her fire on the Florida governor — have clearly forced the DeSantis campaign and its allies to recalculate.Mr. DeSantis’s super PAC, Never Back Down, reported spending nearly $1 million against Ms. Haley this week, after devoting just $29,000 to anti-Haley messaging during the first half of the year.The recent exchanges were spurred by dueling television appearances over the weekend on the deepening humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Last week, Mr. DeSantis doubled down on his opposition to helping some of the nearly one million people contending with shortages of food, clean water and shelter in the region. He described the culture in the Gaza Strip as “toxic” and argued that the people of Gaza “teach kids to hate Jews.” Ms. Haley pushed back against this view, saying that large percentages of Palestinians did not support Hamas and that “America has always been sympathetic to the fact that you can separate civilians from terrorists.” (Polling in Gaza supports Ms. Haley’s claim.)But in an interview on Fox News on Tuesday, Mr. DeSantis cast her words as evidence that she supported allowing refugees from Gaza to come to the United States. The Never Back Down ad from this week spliced the clips from Ms. Haley with comments from Mr. DeSantis criticizing her in an NBC interview. “She’s trying to be politically correct,” he says in the ad. “She’s trying to please the media and people on the left.”Ms. Haley’s campaign has countered with several emails to supporters and the news media, citing fact checkers who have found that Mr. DeSantis got her statements wrong and rejecting what her campaign officials have described as Mr. DeSantis’s consistent mischaracterizations of her statements and her record.Spokespeople for both Mr. DeSantis’s campaign and Never Back Down maintain that their critiques of Ms. Haley are accurate.As governor, Ms. Haley at times voiced the need for the United States to be a welcoming nation for immigrants and refugees. In 2015, she supported the efforts of faith groups to resettle people in South Carolina. But Ms. Haley took an aggressive stance against resettling Syrians in her state after the terror attacks in Paris that same year, citing gaps in intelligence that could make the vetting process difficult.Now, under fire from Mr. DeSantis, her campaign has underscored her hard-line track record as governor on immigration policies and portrayed her as nothing but staunchly opposed to taking in people from the Middle East. “The truth is, Haley has always opposed settling Middle East refugees in America, believing that Arab countries in the region should absorb them,” read one email to reporters.The disputes highlight how even as Republicans remain divided on other features of Mr. Trump’s isolationist “America First” agenda, they have unified behind its hard-line approach to immigration and the nation’s borders, with Mr. DeSantis and Ms. Haley largely aligned in their calls to keep out refugees from the conflict zone.It is widely seen as unlikely that Gazan refugees will be headed for the United States anytime soon. Still, at a DeSantis campaign event in South Carolina on Thursday, the crowd applauded when Mr. DeSantis pledged that as president, he would accept “zero” people from Gaza, adding that he opposed “importing the pathologies of the Middle East to our country.” He also said that any American aid sent to Gaza would end up in the hands of Hamas.Rick McConnell, a 70-year-old Air Force veteran who heard Mr. DeSantis speak, said he understood that Gazans needed food, water and medical supplies. But Mr. McConnell said that Iran — which he believed was responsible for Hamas’s brutal attacks — should provide that aid.“Why can’t they help them?” Mr. McConnell said. “We have veterans sleeping on the streets — our veterans.”The concerns were echoed at Ms. Haley’s events. “If you are living in Gaza, I don’t think you love America or are Christian,” said Corrine Rothchild, 69, a retired elementary school teacher who was still weighing her vote between Ms. Haley and Mr. DeSantis.Mr. DeSantis, who served on the Foreign Affairs Committee during his time in the House of Representatives, has sought to distinguish himself on foreign policy, pointing to restrictions he signed in Florida that banned land purchases by many Chinese nationals and calling for the use of military force against Mexican drug cartels. In the last week, he also has used state funds to charter flights that have brought home hundreds of Americans stranded in Israel.Ms. Haley also has sought to make her foreign policy credentials, her hawkish stances on China and her staunch support of Israel central to her campaign. As Mr. Trump’s United Nations ambassador, Ms. Haley forcefully spoke out in support of his formal recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, as well as his decision to cut American funding to Palestinian refugees.The two have sparred on foreign policy before. She has criticized Mr. DeSantis for his support of Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama and his hold on military nominations over a policy that covers the travel expenses of service members who seek reproductive health care services, including abortions, in other states. She also attacked Mr. DeSantis’s stance on the war in Ukraine, which he called a “territorial dispute” that was not central to U.S. interests — a characterization he later walked back.In recent days, both have also turned their scorn on Mr. Trump for remarks that he made after the Hamas attack criticizing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and referring to Hezbollah, the Iran-backed militant group, as “very smart.” Mr. Trump has since retreated from his comments. He, too, has pledged to reject refugees from Gaza. More

    • 75 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Turmoil Over Student Support for Hamas

      by

      More from our inbox:A Harder Slap on the Wrist for Sidney Powell?A billboard truck displayed the names and faces of Harvard students who were linked to an anti-Israel letter.Sophie Park for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Student Letter Hits Fault Line in Free Speech” (front page, Oct. 19):The unequivocal support for Hamas by some students at elite colleges is irksome and puzzling. These bright young students claim to value tolerance and inclusion while objecting to capital punishment.The savage murders of Israeli babies and senior citizens in their homes and the rape of young Israeli women do not seem to perturb Hamas’s many followers at Harvard and Columbia, but don’t they realize that Hamas brutally persecutes the L.G.B.T.Q. community in Gaza, subjugates women, and tortures and summarily executes dissidents?Ironically, Israel has a much better record on these core human rights issues that progressives insist are key.Adam M. ShawBaltimoreTo the Editor:While the article accurately portrays some of the fears invoked by these dangerous attempts at doxxing at Harvard, the damage has extended even further than described. As a member of the class of 2021, I’ve heard from several classmates who were included in the doxxing list yet have not been associated for years with the student groups that signed onto this statement holding the “Israeli regime” responsible for “all unfolding violence.” Others who appear on the doxxing list are indeed active members of one of the groups, yet had nothing to do with their leadership’s signing onto the statement.This is the logical consequence of such McCarthyite tactics: They provide no opportunity for the accused to respond.Bill Ackman, the hedge fund billionaire who urged that the names of students be circulated to avoid hiring them, and others should be ashamed of themselves for allowing a recent Stanford undergraduate to determine the fates of students partly through “tips sent to an email address.”Such unverified, crowdsourced allegations are misguided in any circumstances, but especially so when they are directed at individuals from marginalized backgrounds.Jonah S. BergerPittsburghTo the Editor:Students who support the liberation and self-determination of Palestine are being targeted for being “antisemitic.” The harassment of these students demonstrates that there is no recognition of the free speech rights of those who critique the Israeli government’s brutal military occupation.We in the U.S. must end the silencing of dissent about Israel’s actions. The nonviolent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement to force changes in policies of forced removal of Palestinians must be honored as a legitimate tactic instead of being labeled antisemitic.We must learn to listen to the legitimate opinions that the U.S. should not be complicit in Israel’s colonial-settler policies, just as we must listen to the demands for a cease-fire, an end to military aid and a space where Palestinians can represent themselves in diplomatic avenues.Carla S. SchickOakland, Calif.To the Editor:It strikes me that the students at Harvard who complain about being “doxxed” misunderstand the concept of free speech. Free speech means that you are free to say whatever is on your mind “free” of government restrictions. It does not mean that your speech is free of consequences.If you open your mouth and say something stupid, people will naturally think you’re stupid. If you say mean things, they likely will think you mean. And if you act as an apologist for terrorists, people will understand you to be an apologist for terrorists.Words have consequences. I, for one, have little sympathy for these individuals.Sanford H. MargolinPiedmont, Calif.A Harder Slap on the Wrist for Sidney Powell?Sidney Powell and Rudolph W. Giuliani in 2020. It remains unclear what Ms. Powell might say about former President Donald J. Trump if called upon to testify against him.Jacquelyn Martin/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “Trump Insider Agrees to Testify in Georgia Case” (front page, Oct. 20), about Sidney Powell’s plea deal:A letter of apology and a minor fine?That is an appropriate punishment when you throw a rock through the neighbor’s window, or steal bubble gum from the local candy store. It is a decidedly less than adequate response when you have deliberately and repeatedly taken part in an effort to undo the results of a presidential election with the clear purpose of throwing this nation into chaos.I understand that plea bargains are just that, an accord intended to recognize that a wrong was done but minimize the punishment inflicted. But telling Sidney Powell to go sit in a corner for five minutes, I mean, really?I understand the big prize is the former president, but I think Ms. Powell may have been convinced to testify even if her wrist had been slapped a bit harder.Maybe what should have been required was a letter of apology not just to the citizens of Georgia but also to a larger audience — like our entire country.Robert S. NussbaumFort Lee, N.J. More

    • 88 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Biden’s Aid, and Pointed Advice, to Israel

      by

      More from our inbox:How to Unify, and Save, the CountrySadly, CBC Ends a Time-Honored TraditionOver-the-Counter MedicinesPresident Biden was greeted by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on his arrival in Israel on Wednesday.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “U.S. Backs Israel, as Cause of Blast Remains Disputed” and “Biden Urges Caution in War on Hamas” (front page, Oct. 19):President Biden offers good advice that one hopes will be heard by all: Do not let shock, pain and rage lead to counterproductive decisions, decisions that cause unnecessary loss of innocent life and squander the world’s sympathy.Palestinians and Israelis have each been failed by their leaders. Palestinians and Israelis have each suffered unspeakable harm.We pray that Palestinians and Israelis and their respective leaders and all of the people who empathize with them will remember that in the midst of righteous anger, ill-conceived actions can make matters much, much worse for everyone.Ron BoyerEugene, Ore.To the Editor:As an American Jew, I am horrified by President Biden’s response to Hamas’s horrific murder of Israelis on Oct. 7. By providing military aid to Israel, the U.S. government is fueling the Israeli government’s vastly disproportionate response, in which it has already killed more Palestinian civilians than Israeli civilians were killed by Hamas.Mr. Biden may have urged the Israeli people not to be consumed by the rage they feel about the Hamas terror attacks, but that statement is completely contradicted by his sending the very weapons that the Israeli military is using to kill civilians.The U.S. can stop this immoral violence, but instead is fanning the flames by providing support for the autocratic Israeli government. I am joined by many other American Jews in condemning the Israeli government’s killing of thousands and threatening millions of innocent lives in the name of the Jewish people.Miriam ShakowNarberth, Pa.To the Editor:In this time of unbelievable misery and loss, it may be naïve to talk about international law. But some of the participants in the current fighting in Israel (and their allies) have represented that they are trying to respect the laws of war. Since many observers may not be familiar with those laws, I write simply to report two indisputable principles.First, the same rules of conduct apply to the “aggressor” and to its victims. “They started it” is no excuse for doing things that would otherwise be illegal.Second, the fact that the overall objective is permissible (like self-defense) or even laudatory does not excuse using methods that result in disproportionate harm to civilians.Applying these principles, it is a violation of the laws of war to knowingly cut off food, water, fuel and medical supplies to entire trapped localities. The harm would fall disproportionately on civilians who have even less access to whatever supplies exist than those in authority. It cannot be justified.Lea BrilmayerBranford, Conn.The writer is an emeritus professor of international law at Yale University.To the Editor:As an American Israeli living in Israel with a son in the Israel Defense Forces, I feel that I must speak out.It was uplifting for Israelis to hear President Biden’s remarks after the attacks on Oct. 7. Israelis everywhere felt encouraged by the president’s unequivocal support, and the unambiguous message that the events of Oct. 7 constituted “pure, unadulterated evil” — because they truly did.It is clear to Israelis that in carrying out these atrocities, Hamas was seeking to draw Israel into precisely the actions that Israel is now engaged in. The justification for those actions could be debated endlessly, but the world must know that Israel considers itself in existential peril. And in our hour of trial, we derive incredible strength from American support.The objective of Israel’s war with Hamas is not the suffering of Gazans or Palestinians but the crippling of a murderous terrorist organization that has caused unprecedented suffering for Israelis and Palestinians alike.David GilmoreHolon, IsraelHow to Unify, and Save, the Country Doug Mills/The New York TimesTo the Editor:These are unprecedented times. Democracy, national security and the world order are at stake. Our nation has never been so divided.While our young experiment in democracy faces a challenge to its very existence, our world faces heightened conflict from dangerous leaders who present existential threats, and our planet faces increased temperature extremes, violent destructive storms and devastating wildfires.Considering all that is at stake, our nation must find its way to tamp down the noise from the extreme sides of both parties, the disinformation promulgated by partisan media and the contempt for others fueled by social media.I propose a unique approach to ensure the continued success of our republic. As much as I respect and admire Vice President Kamala Harris, I would ask that for the greater good of our nation and the world, she step aside as President Biden selects a moderate Republican (such as Larry Hogan, the former Maryland governor) as his 2024 running mate.Not only would this virtually guarantee his re-election, but it would also be a giant step in uniting the country.Bradley S. FeuerWellington, Fla.Sadly, CBC Ends a Time-Honored TraditionThe “long dash,” as the CBC’s daily announcement of the official time was known to generations of Canadians, was broadcast for the final time on Oct. 9.Geoff Robins/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “After 84 Years, Time Abruptly Runs Out on Canadian Radio Tradition” (news article, Oct. 18):CBC’s dropping of its 84-year tradition of announcing the precise time at 1 p.m. day in and day out may seem like a trivial matter in the current world environment. But find me a Canadian who cannot finish the sentence “The beginning of the long dash …” (for the non-Canadian readers: “indicates exactly 1 o’clock Eastern Standard Time”).It’s as common as eight months of winter and hockey, and always saying “I’m sorry.”It was enough of a collective jolt when the middle of the announcement (“following 10 seconds of silence”) was abandoned. We grew up counting down that 10 seconds of radio silence while at the ready to instantly adjust our watches if necessary. And now we are completely on our own.Go easy on us, world, if the lone Canadian invited to the party is now always early or late. We’re sorry.Mary E. CampbellOttawaOver-the-Counter Medicines Jackson GibbsTo the Editor:Re “We’ve Known for 20 Years This Cold Medicine Doesn’t Work,” by Randy C. Hatton and Leslie Hendeles (Opinion guest essay, Oct. 1):Nonprescription, over-the-counter (O.T.C.) medicines are a cornerstone of our nation’s health care system, yet your essay draws sweeping conclusions and disregards decades of regulatory oversight, scientific review, and real-world evidence supporting their safety and efficacy.Phenylephrine, the only O.T.C. oral decongestant available without purchase restrictions, has decades of use as a safe and effective option for temporary nasal congestion relief. The Food and Drug Administration has twice determined phenylephrine to be “generally recognized as safe and effective,” the regulatory standard for O.T.C. medicines.However, the authors’ assessment discounts this history, and other evidence, while elevating their own limited research. No medicine works equally for everyone, and every medicine has unique considerations for therapeutic selection. Providing Americans with options that offer freedom of choice for personal health care needs is a core attribute of our health care system.Consumers can have confidence in their O.T.C. medicines, and the regulatory framework that oversees them.Scott MelvilleWashingtonThe writer is president and C.E.O. of the Consumer Healthcare Products Association. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Biden’s Response to Israel-Hamas War Meets Centrist Praise and Liberal Anger

      by

      A prime-time address to the nation on Thursday will be the president’s third major speech on the Mideast conflict as his Democratic coalition strains over his handling of the violence.When President Biden delivers a prime-time Oval Office address on Thursday about the wars in Israel and Ukraine, it will be his third major speech on the Mideast conflict as he grapples with a fragile Democratic coalition that is closely watching how he handles the outbreak of violence.In his remarks last week and again on Wednesday in Tel Aviv, Mr. Biden sought to put no daylight between the United States and Israel — though in his second speech, he warned the Israelis not to “be consumed” by their rage about the Hamas attack this month that killed more than 1,400 people. He pleaded with the Israelis not to overreact, as he said the United States did after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.The centrist Democrats who make up the core of Mr. Biden’s political base were nearly unanimous in their praise.“I am grateful to have @POTUS thoughtful leadership in this moment,” Representative Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri wrote on social media. “As we continue working save the lives of hostages and hold Hamas accountable, I encourage him to continue using his platform to call for restraint and the protection of innocent Israelis and Palestinians alike.”Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland said Mr. Biden “speaks for me and speaks for all of America” on Israel. And Richard Haass, the former chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, called the Wednesday speech “nothing less than masterful.”And while Biden campaign officials insist they aren’t planning to use the Israel trip as campaign fodder, Representative Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts forecast what could become the sort of contrast the president’s aides and allies make with former President Donald J. Trump should he win the Republican presidential nomination.“Joe Biden flew into a war zone to stand with Israel,” Mr. Auchincloss said late Wednesday. “Trump wouldn’t even visit a cemetery of American war dead.” (Mr. Trump, in 2018, canceled a planned trip to a French cemetery, and his aides cited the rainy weather.)Liberal Democrats who have been critical of how Mr. Biden has tethered the White House to Israel as the Israelis carry out attacks on the Gaza Strip focused their attention Wednesday on amplifying attention on antiwar demonstrators who marched around the Capitol and renewed their calls for a cease-fire.“We cannot bomb our way to peace,” wrote Representative Cori Bush of Missouri. “We need a cease-fire,” said Representative André Carson of Indiana. And several left-wing members of Congress reposted a message from Pope Francis in which he called the situation in Gaza “desperate” and pleaded that “the weapons be silenced; let the cry for peace be heard from the poor, from the people, from the children!”Some used especially heated language: Representative Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, speaking outside the Capitol, said, “We are literally watching people commit genocide and killing a vast majority, just like this, and we still stand by and say nothing.”Some Democrats began attacking their party colleagues who are skeptical of the Israeli war effort. Representative Jerry Nadler of New York condemned the organization behind the Capitol protest, and Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida told Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota that “you have been training your outrage on the wrong party” after Ms. Omar reiterated her call for Mr. Biden to seek a cease-fire.Progressive activists circulated a video of Dilawar Syed, a deputy administrator of the Small Business Administration, being booed while speaking at a vigil for Wadea Al-Fayoume, the 6-year-old Palestinian boy from the Chicago suburbs who was killed in what prosecutors said was an attack motivated by hate for Muslims amid the fighting in Israel and Gaza.Another meme circulating on left-wing social media showed a stylized Mr. Biden behind the wheel of a convertible with the caption “Genocidin’ with Biden.”And Josh Paul, a career State Department official, announced his resignation because of the Biden administration’s “blind support for one side,” which he said was leading to policy decisions that were “shortsighted, destructive, unjust and contradictory to the very values we publicly espouse.” More