Israel

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Debates Over Words Amid War: ‘Antisemitism,’ ‘Anti-Zionism,’ ‘Apartheid’

      by

      More from our inbox:Expanding Advanced Placement Classes: Harmful or More Equitable?Election LessonsAmericans’ Love of Outlaws Stefani Reynolds/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “The Question of Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism,” by Charles M. Blow (column, Nov. 16):The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, adopted by dozens of countries around the world, indeed does define anti-Zionism as antisemitism. It cites as an example of antisemitism: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”That the Jewish people deserve the right of self-determination, after the Holocaust and the persecution throughout Arab lands for centuries, was resolved in 1948. To debate Zionism is precisely the problem facing the Jews today and most especially Israelis who live in an absurd world in which the nature of their birthright is called into question, as every single Israeli is born of Zionism.How ironic that in this day and age in the United States, where every minority is protected and words matter more than ever, it is somehow acceptable to define oneself as anti-Zionist, even if Jewish. It is offensive, absurd and deeply antisemitic.As an American Israeli, I cannot stress enough how toxic this concept is to Israelis and how it does nothing to help the cause of peace today.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.We are confirming your access to this article, this will take just a moment. However, if you are using Reader mode please log in, subscribe, or exit Reader mode since we are unable to verify access in that state.Confirming article access.If you are a subscriber, please  More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      There’s a big reason Biden is losing younger voters: Israel-Palestine | Moira Donegan

      by

      The 2024 presidential contest should not be close. Joe Biden’s opponent, Donald Trump, is a bigot, a liar and a crook, with dozens of credible sexual assault allegations, a disastrous track record of enabling sadistic racism in both his policy and his rhetoric, a frank admission of his own authoritarian ambitions, and 92 pending felony charges.The Republican party that the former president leads has become beholden to a small but extremely powerful base of voters with wildly unpopular social views, particularly regarding abortion – views that have driven the Republicans to election losses in virtually all major contests since the summer of 2022. Voters hate them, and reject their vision for the US; few politicians have ever been so unpopular as Trump is, and few political platforms have ever seemed so determined to alienate and anger voters as the Republican party’s.Yet Joe Biden could lose. If the election were held today, it’s likely that he would. Much was made of a New York Times/Siena poll, published earlier this month, that showed the US president losing to Trump in five key swing states. The Biden campaign largely downplayed the numbers, shrugging that the election is far away.Now, a new NBC poll also shows Biden in dire straits, with his approval rating falling to the lowest it has ever been: 40%. The poll found that he was faring especially poorly with Democrats and young voters, large numbers of whom are dissatisfied with his handling of an issue that is exposing a growing divide within the party: Israel’s assault on Palestinians in Gaza following the October 7 Hamas attack.From nearly the first moments of Israel’s war, the Biden administration has staunchly supported its Middle East ally, and allowed little public daylight between their own official statements and those of Israel’s rightwing prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The aid and arms deals continue to flow to Israel unconditioned, even as Israeli bombings have now killed more than 14,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including more than 5,000 children and displaced upwards of a million people.The hawkish support for Israel’s war has been intense, with rhetoric from the White House often appearing indifferent or outright hostile to concerns about the deaths of Palestinian civilians. On 10 October, Biden’s press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre described calls for a ceasefire as “wrong”, “repugnant” and “disgraceful”. “There are not two sides here,” Jean-Pierre said, signaling that the White House would not brook any concern for Palestinian lives.In an especially disturbing moment, Biden himself cast doubt on the official death toll from the Gaza health ministry – saying on 27 October that he had “no confidence in the number the Palestinians are using” – even though figures from this agency have been previously deemed reliable by the United Nations and international human rights agencies. The implication seemed to be that the Palestinians were cynically overstating the number of their dead, and that the real number was some smaller, supposedly more acceptable figure.Since he made that comment, the Palestinian casualties in Gaza are said to have nearly doubled. It’s unclear whether Biden believes it.As the corpses pile up and Gaza’s buildings tumble down, the Biden administration has seemed to hedge on this unqualified pro-Israel, pro-war stance, at least at the margins. People identified as “administration officials” have given off-the-record quotes expressing “frustration” and “concern” with the Israelis’ determination to press forward with a Gaza invasion without any long-term plan for the region. Asked if the Israelis were making any real effort to minimize civilian casualties, the US national security council spokesman, John Kirby, said: “We have seen some indications that there are efforts being applied in certain situations to try to minimize, but I don’t want to overstate that.”Alon Pinkas of Haaretz interpreted those remarks as a signal of a growing distaste for the Israeli operation within the Biden US security state. This is what amounts to distancing from the Biden administration when it comes to Israel’s operation in Gaza: hedged off-the-record statements about long-term strategy, and a single response to a question of whether Israel is acting as if it cares about preserving innocent Palestinian lives that amounts to a coded and heavily euphemistic “no”.That’s the official line. But there are growing indications that the Democratic party is heading for a revolt over the issue. Young voters are not the only ones who are angry. Arab and Muslim American voters are voicing outrage at Biden’s stance, endangering his re-election prospects nationwide but especially in the crucial battleground state of Michigan, which is home to a large Muslim American voting bloc.Even within the party bureaucracy itself, there are signs of trouble. The state department has fielded an unusual number of internal complaint memos about US policy over the issue; large numbers of Democratic congressional staffers joined a Washington DC protest calling for a ceasefire.The House voted to censure representative Rashida Tlaib, of Michigan, the only Palestinian American in Congress, over her calls for Palestinian liberation – particularly her use of the phrase “from the river to the sea”, which Tlaib explained was a call for peace, freedom, dignity and equality for all in the region, but which her detractors alleged was an antisemitic call for Jewish elimination. (Such has been the nature of much of the debate around the conflict in the halls of US power: arguments over rhetoric have frequently distracted from substantive issues of policy.)But that did not stop a growing number of her fellow Democratic members of Congress from joining her in calls for a ceasefire. The White House may be calling them “repugnant”, but the pro-ceasefire camp in Congress looks more and more like the future of the Democratic party: it is younger, it is further to the left, and it is majority non-white.Handwringing about Biden’s age and its relevance is overstated. But few issues have done more to highlight the problem of gerontocracy within the Democratic party, and of the growing generational gap in US politics, than this internal dispute over Israel-Palestine. In a way, the divide between Biden and his loyalists on the one hand, and the pro-ceasefire left and Democratic base on the other, might be a matter of historical references.Biden comes from a generation that came of age much closer in time to the Holocaust; he is in that sense perhaps more acutely aware of Jewish vulnerability – and certainly more convinced that Zionism’s nationalist project can mitigate it – than younger people are. The younger staffers, state department functionaries, members of Congress, and voters, meanwhile, are not thinking of the second world War, but of the war on terror; of September 11, and the disastrous, brutal and ultimately futile wars of revenge that the US fought in its aftermath.Each side is proceeding from what they feel are the definitive lessons of their era – the 20th century for Biden, and the 21st century for the pro-ceasefire camp. The results of the next election may well depend on whether they can find each other in time.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 238 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      A lasting peace in Gaza is now within reach – here’s how it can be achieved | Roee Kibrik

      by

      With a deal on the release of hostages and a pause in the fighting, the war in Gaza is entering a new stage. This four-day truce will see the handing over of dozens of hostages, but the pause also gives the international community an opportunity to promote stable and sustainable peace in Israel and the Palestinian territories. We are at a crossroads – and before us lies either a continuation of the conflict, or the impetus to find a permanent resolution.Hamas’s murderous attack on 7 October shattered many longstanding convictions. It brought the Palestinian issue back to centre stage; challenged the notion that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be managed at a low cost; and undermined the belief that Israel could pursue integration in the Middle East while ignoring Palestinian demands. In its place, there is now a commonly held view across Israeli society that “managing the conflict” hasn’t worked, and that there instead must be a permanent resolution.At the same time, there are reasons why management of the conflict, rather than a protracted attempt at a resolution, would suit some of the main players. The US and UK governments both face elections in 2024, and are preoccupied with the war in Ukraine due to the need for stability and lower energy prices. Meanwhile, Arab leaderships are dealing with a range of internal challenges, and relative calm in the Palestinian arena may be enough to appease them. Hamas would be happy to continue to struggle with Israel without facing a diplomatic process that could provide legitimacy to the Palestinian Authority, strengthen moderate politicians and ultimately undermine its power.Netanyahu would also be content with managing the conflict, as any attempt to solve it would threaten the stability of his coalition and the continuation of his rule. His coalition, and consequently his leadership, relies on the support of the extremist settler movement. This faction adamantly opposes any compromises with the Palestinians and viewed Hamas as an “asset”, because its existence hinders the possibility of a peace process.It is therefore easy to imagine both sides sliding back into managing a low-intensity conflict. Under this scenario, the IDF would remain in Gaza for an extended period, continuing the fight against Hamas. The conflict would be confined to the Gaza Strip. The public would adjust to it. It would no longer be news, and the world would move its attention elsewhere – until the next eruption occurs in Gaza, the West Bank or in Lebanon.Alternatively, absent the will or the ability of the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority to bring about meaningful change, the international community, led by the US, could push toward a resolution of the conflict. To achieve that, the international community needs to promote several key steps.First and foremost, it must define the ultimate goal – which should be to commit to the implementation of the two-state solution and an embrace of the Arab Peace Initiative – and a timeline within which to achieve it. This can be done by via a resolution of the UN security council (UNSC). To overcome the tension between the US and Russia, it may require a representative of the Arab world such as the UAE to champion the proposal in the UNSC. If this path is blocked, a regional peace summit convened by the US would be a satisfactory alternative.Secondly, and of utmost importance, it is vital that Joe Biden leads the recognition of a Palestinian state by the US and other major countries, as part of a comprehensive diplomatic process. Such a step will ensure that there is no turning back. It will change the dynamic in Gaza and in the West Bank, making it difficult for Israel to continue its creeping annexation, and strengthen the Palestinian Authority against Hamas. Furthermore, such a move could boost Biden electorally, helping him to potentially regain support that he lost when backing Israel’s operation in Gaza.Knowing that the creation of a Palestinian state is the endgame will enable the third critical step to be taken by the international community: the formulation of an interim international-Palestinian regime. With a clear and recognised goal of achieving the two-state solution, an international force drawn from Arab and western countries could then be recruited to gradually replace the IDF in Gaza and take responsibility for security and development efforts. If the path to a two-state solution is defined, European and Arab countries will agree to invest in building the physical and institutional infrastructure of what Biden called a “revitalised Palestinian Authority”, leading the way to a Palestinian state. No one wants to continue pouring money into Gaza if the strategy of managing the conflict continues and its infrastructure needs to be rebuilt every few years after another round of war.The absence of worthy leadership in Israel and the Palestinian territories means that securing peace falls on the shoulders of Biden and the international community. He must step up and deliver.
      Roee Kibrik is director of research at Mitvim – the Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies, and a lecturer at Yezreel Valley College
      Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    • 50 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      My Brother’s Thanksgiving Lament

      by

      Thanksgiving began as a time of prayer. We could use some prayers right now, in a country inflamed with hate and prejudice and generational mistrust. Americans are at each other’s throats, living in different realities, fraught by two brutal, calamitous wars. So, as this annus horribilis lurches to a close, with the hope that we can understand each other better, or at least eat pie together, here is the annual holiday column from a man I frequently disagree with, but always, love, my conservative brother, Kevin.****Less than a year before the country chooses a president, President Biden’s poll numbers are almost catastrophic. The overwhelming majority of voters say he is too old, and Donald Trump is beating him in five of six battleground states, according to one recent survey.While majorities of the country find both Trump and Biden unacceptable, Trump remains the Republican front-runner, bolstered by what his supporters see as overeager Democratic prosecutions. This scenario holds great peril for Republicans because Trump is the weakest candidate against Biden. He already lost to him in 2020 and the reflexive hatred he generates, especially among women, could boost Democratic turnout as only Trump could manage.Biden’s three years have been a disaster. An exorbitant round of unnecessary Covid spending sent inflation through the roof, leading to a destructive rise in interest rates and further squeezing consumers.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.We are confirming your access to this article, this will take just a moment. However, if you are using Reader mode please log in, subscribe, or exit Reader mode since we are unable to verify access in that state.Confirming article access.If you are a subscriber, please  More

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      A Crisis at Gaza’s Hospitals, and More

      by

      The New York Times Audio app is home to journalism and storytelling, and provides news, depth and serendipity. If you haven’t already, download it here — available to Times news subscribers on iOS — and sign up for our weekly newsletter.The Headlines brings you the biggest stories of the day from the Times journalists who are covering them, all in about 10 minutes.The Indonesian Hospital in Gaza earlier this month. The enclave has 36 hospitals.Anas al-Shareef/ReutersOn Today’s Episode:Critical Trauma Care Is Not Possible at Any of Gaza’s Hospitals, the W.H.O. Says, by Farnaz FassihiFederal Court Moves to Drastically Weaken Voting Rights Act, by Nick Corasaniti‘Lost Time for No Reason’: How Driverless Taxis Are Stressing Cities, by Yiwen LuEmily Lang More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Is Biden vs. Trump the ‘Election We Need’?

      by

      More from our inbox:Rosalynn Carter’s ‘Incredible Life’Protests at ColumbiaBidenomics Isn’t Helping Me Damon Winter/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “A Trump-Biden Rematch Is the Election We Need,” by Carlos Lozada (column, Nov. 12):When I first saw the headline on Mr. Lozada’s column, I thought, “No way!” After reading the piece and thinking about it, I have decided that this is the one election we truly need to have.There is no greater comparison than Biden vs. Trump. It is the classic confrontation of good versus evil, and the American people need to decide whether we choose to maintain a constitutional republic, or support an authoritarian, belligerent, vindictive form of government.The twice impeached, quadruple indicted former president is a clear and present danger, while Joe Biden is a staunch defender of democracy, fairness and decency. We need this election to once and for all defeat MAGA and Trumpism, and send Donald Trump packing, if he is not in prison.There is no greater threat to the American way of life than Donald Trump, and even if Joe Biden is simply a place holder for the president who is elected in 2028, that would be far more palatable than a Trump presidency.Henry A. LowensteinNew YorkTo the Editor:Carlos Lozada argues that “we have no choice but to choose” between Donald Trump and President Biden and their dueling visions for America at the ballot box in 2024. This is, for now, a false choice.In light of the alarming polling trend regarding Mr. Biden’s re-electability, the wisest course of action for the Democrats is to urgently organize, with Mr. Biden’s blessing (he would have to be persuaded), a robust Democratic presidential primary in order to discover whom Democratic voters would turn out for in the largest numbers on Election Day.But the longer that Democratic elites delay, the Trump-Biden choice will, in short order, become one that we indeed cannot escape. If this occurs, as seems likely, it will be a choice that Mr. Biden and the Democratic establishment impose on the electorate.And if Mr. Biden comes up short at the ballot box in 2024, as the recent New York Times/Siena poll suggests he will, he and the Democratic Party’s other so-called leaders will have nobody but themselves to blame.Nicholas BuxtonNew YorkTo the Editor:Carlos Lozada writes: “Joe Biden versus Donald Trump is not the choice America wants. But it is the choice we need to face.”Yes, it is the choice we need to face, but what a risk!With Mr. Trump’s high polling numbers, it certainly seems that a significant number of people support his candidacy unequivocally. What he says and does — illegal or not — makes no difference. He evokes deep emotions and the feeling that he will settle their scores and protect them from the “woke” mob. They like Mr. Trump’s moxie and flouting of authority, but don’t listen to his actual plan of governance.He plainly wants to create an authoritarian government — put his cronies in the Justice Department and jail his political “enemies,” pack the courts and rule as his whims dictate.Yes, the best way to end Mr. Trump’s reign of influence would be to decisively defeat him in this election. But we are taking the huge risk that he could win — and end our democracy as we know it.I would rather risk losing to a Nikki Haley than take the chance on beating Mr. Trump. Unfortunately, we may not have a choice.It is the job of the Democratic candidates and the media to clearly present the facts about the likely choices in this election. And keep our fingers crossed!Carol KrainesDeerfield, Ill.To the Editor:Representative Dean Phillips of Minnesota, the 54-year-old Democrat running a long-shot presidential campaign, took direct aim at President Biden and his message in a recent CNN interview.Mr. Phillips said: “I think in 2020, he was probably the only Democrat who could have beaten Donald Trump. I think in 2024, he may be among the only ones that will lose to him.”Let’s think about that, because if you do, his argument is very persuasive. Mr. Phillips is a relatively young, moderate Democrat. Millions of people are yearning for an alternative to an octogenarian Joe Biden and to an existentially dangerous to our democracy Donald Trump.In a recent poll, a “generic” Democrat matched against Mr. Trump outperformed Joe Biden by more than 10 points. We Democrats want an alternative. Just maybe we’ve found one, and his name is Dean Phillips.Ken DerowSwarthmore, Pa.Rosalynn Carter’s ‘Incredible Life’At their home in Plains, Ga., in the same place they’ve always sat.” After the presidency, Mrs. Carter joined her husband in doing work for Habitat for Humanity, co-founded a vaccine advocacy organization and continued to campaign to reduce the stigma of mental illness. Dustin Chambers for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Rosalynn Carter, 1927-2023: First Lady and Influential Partner to a President” (obituary, front page, Nov. 20):Rosalynn Carter walked her own path, inspiring a nation and the world along the way.Throughout her incredible life as first lady of Georgia and the first lady of the United States, Mrs. Carter did so much to address many of society’s greatest needs.She was a champion for equal rights and opportunities for women and girls; an advocate for mental health and wellness for every person; and a supporter of the often unseen and uncompensated caregivers of our children, aging loved ones and people with disabilities.Above all, the deep love shared between Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter is the definition of partnership, and their humble leadership is the definition of patriotism. She lived life by her faith.I send my love to Mr. Carter, the entire Carter family, and the countless people across our nation and the world whose lives are better, fuller and brighter because of the life and legacy of Rosalynn Carter.Paul BaconHallandale Beach, Fla.Protests at Columbia Bing Guan for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Columbia Students and Faculty Protest War and the University’s Reaction to It” (news article, Nov. 16):Columbia administrators cite “unauthorized” events and the necessary continuation of “core university activities” as primary reasons for silencing pro-Palestinian groups on campus.I don’t always agree with the politics of these groups, and I agree with the university’s finding that “threatening rhetoric and intimidation” exist at their protests. Still, the university’s actions raise these questions:What is a university if not a space for the free exchange of ideas? Is protest not a core university activity at an institution celebrated for its amplification of student voices?As long as they don’t incite violence or endanger members of our community, Columbia’s pro-Palestinian groups should be allowed to offend, frighten and protest whenever and wherever they’d like.Benjamin RubinNew YorkThe writer is a member of the Columbia University class of 2027.Bidenomics Isn’t Helping Me John ProvencherTo the Editor:Re “Bidenomics Has a Mortal Enemy, and It Isn’t Trump,” by Karen Petrou (Opinion guest essay, Nov. 19):Ms. Petrou is absolutely accurate. I am self-employed, work full time and cannot make ends meet.I’m constantly trying to determine whether to pay the bills or rent on my business; luckily, I have kind landlords. I pay a mortgage as well. I’m college educated. The last couple of weeks of every month I am generally broke and couldn’t pay anything if I had to. And this situation has gone on for years now.I really like President Biden, but I do agree that on this particular issue the administration is getting it wrong.Shannon TrimbleSan Francisco More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Israeli Army Escorts Journalists to Gaza Hospital, and More

      by

      The New York Times Audio app is home to journalism and storytelling, and provides news, depth and serendipity. If you haven’t already, download it here — it’s available to Times news subscribers on iOS — and sign up for our weekly newsletter.The Headlines brings you the biggest stories of the day from the Times journalists who are covering them, all in about 10 minutes.A view of Al-Shifa Hospital in a darkened Gaza. Israel says Hamas maintains a command center beneath the hospital, a claim rejected by Hamas and hospital officials.Mohammed Saber/EPA, via ShutterstockOn Today’s Episode:The Israeli Army Escorted Times Journalists to Al-Shifa, a Focus of Its Invasion, by Philip P. Pan and Patrick KingsleySantos Won’t Seek Re-election After House Panel Finds Evidence of Crimes, by Grace AshfordSean Combs Is Accused by Cassie of Rape and Years of Abuse in Lawsuit, with Ben SisarioEmily Lang More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Will Biden lose voters over response to Israel-Hamas war? – podcast

      by

      On Wednesday, the UN security council voted to back a resolution calling for a humanitarian pause in Gaza and the release of all the Israeli hostages held by Hamas. The US and the UK abstained on the resolution, saying they could not give their full support because it did not explicitly criticise Hamas.
      Joe Biden is facing growing calls to demand a ceasefire in Gaza. In a letter presented to him on Tuesday, more than 500 political appointees and staff members criticised the extent of the president’s support for Israel. But what about the communities directly involved? What do Arab-American and Jewish American voters think of Biden’s response since the 7 October attacks?
      Jonathan Freedland speaks to Dr James Zogby, of the Arab American Institute, and Jodi Rudoren, of The Forward, to discuss it

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know More