Israel

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Joe Biden feels political ground shift as Israel-Gaza conflict rages on

      by

      In his staunch defence of Israel, Joe Biden is sticking to a course set decades ago as a young senator, and so far he has not given ground on the issue to the progressive wing of his party or many Jewish Democrats urging a tougher line towards Benjamin Netanyahu. Biden has even been prepared to face isolation at the UN security council, at the potential cost of his own credibility on multilateralism and human rights. But analysts say that as the death toll rises with no sign of a ceasefire, the domestic and international pressures on the president could become impossible to ignore.American Jews have grown increasingly sceptical of Netanyahu and his policies. A Pew Research Center survey published last week found that only 40% thought the prime minister was providing good leadership, falling to 32% among younger Jews. Strikingly, only 34% strongly opposed sanctions or other punitive measures against Israel.The liberal Jewish American lobby, J Street, has growing influence in the Democratic party and has urged Biden to do more to stop the bloodshed and the Israeli policies that have helped drive the conflict.“We’re also urging the administration to make clear publicly that Israeli efforts to evict and displace Palestinian families in East Jerusalem and the West Bank are unacceptable, as is the use of excessive force against protesters,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, the group’s president.A prominent progressive Jewish writer, Peter Beinart, wrote a commentary in the New York Times last week arguing for the right of Palestinian refugees to return as the only long-term solution to the cycle of violence. “The East Jerusalem evictions are so combustible because they continue a pattern of expulsion that is as old as Israel itself,” Beinart wrote.Donald Trump’s unquestioning embrace of Netanyahu and his policies contributed to making Israel policy a partisan issue. Facing increasing opposition from American Jews, the former Israeli ambassador to the US Ron Dermer argued publicly last week that the Israeli government should spend more of its energy reaching out to “passionate” American evangelicals, rather than Jews who he said were “disproportionately among our critics”.US evangelicals such as Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo helped shape Trump policy on Israel. They are not a force in the Democratic party but a consideration in red and purple states Biden will have to win in next year’s midterm congressional elections to maintain a majority.However, he cannot afford to alienate the progressive wing of his own party. It was progressive enthusiasm, and the support of prominent figures such as Bernie Sanders, that helped Biden win the presidency where Hillary Clinton failed.Congressional progressives such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have been more and more outspoken in their criticism of the Biden line of emphasising Israel’s right of defence “If the Biden admin can’t stand up to an ally, who can it stand up to? How can they credibly claim to stand for human rights?” Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter on Saturday.This is happening with the support of the United States.I don’t care how any spokesperson tries to spin this. The US vetoed the UN call for ceasefire.If the Biden admin can’t stand up to an ally, who can it stand up to?How can they credibly claim to stand for human rights? https://t.co/bXY99O3Wqp— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) May 15, 2021
      Biden worked hard to cultivate the progressives during the campaign and afterwards, setting up policy workshops with them, but the current crisis has brought that honeymoon in an end.Most analysts, however, say Biden set his course on the Israel long ago and will be hard to shift. He was a staunch defender in the Senate for decades, supporting the Israeli bombing of a suspected nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, for example, and labelling himself “Israel’s best Catholic friend”.His foreign policy outlook is based on the foundation of adhering to and strengthening America’s traditional alliances.“Biden has his own compass when it comes to the region, and is less susceptible to pressure from the left flank of his party,” said Carmiel Arbit, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. “Although there is some pressure within the Democratic party to take a less sympathetic stance towards Israel, and it is certainly starting to drive a different conversation, it is not driving policy on this issue.”Arbit added: “But a lot depends on the situation. If the conflict escalates, and casualty numbers rise significantly, Biden’s posture could change.”Daniel Levy, the head of the US/Middle East Project thinktank, agreed that the political ground is shifting under Biden’s feet. “It is premature to suggest that the special treatment Israel receives in American politics and policy, and that has previously traversed Republican and Democratic administrations, is definitively over,” Levy said. “Yet the dynamics are pushing in that direction and the signs of change are already visible – the question is how far and how fast those will move.”In the short term, he added, the key will be the views expressed in the Senate, which is split 50-50, with Biden’s agenda often dependent on Kamala Harris, the vice-president, casting the deciding vote. More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in World Politics

      White America’s Burden in the Holy Land

      by

      Earlier this week, an Israeli military official evoked “a worst-case scenario” conducted by three Israeli infantry brigades that would amount to crushing Gaza on the ground rather than just bombarding it. Some observers have noticed that the current worse-than-ever-before-but-not-as-bad-as-what’s-to-come scenario has miraculously permitted Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, to hang on to power after the March 23 election deprived him of the hope of heading a new coalition.

      The Future of Jerusalem Matters to Us All

      READ MORE

      Washington Post reporter Steve Hendrix notes that “the escalation of fighting brought a last-minute reprieve from what could have been the end of [Netanyahu’s] record run at the top of Israeli politics.” Hendrix quotes Gayil Talshir, a professor at Hebrew University: “The riot came just in time to prevent the change of government in Israel.” Despite this “coincidence,” Hendrix avoids suggesting what some suspect: that Netanyahu’s policies and recent actions may have been designed to provoke the current crisis.

      Rather than delve into history, reflect on the meaning or explore possible hidden motives, Hendrix prefers the approach that Western media have long preferred: presenting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a combined violent chess game and political popularity contest between two obdurate parties whose leaders are unwilling to compromise. Hendrix reduces an enduring historical drama of vast geopolitical dimensions to a petty game of leaders seeking electoral advantage by appealing to their base, à la Donald Trump. He calls the new wave of violence “a boon to the leaders of both camps — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas militants — who have been struggling and scraping to salvage their political standing.” That’s the kind of narrative that appeals to The Post’s readers living in their bubble within the Beltway. History be damned; this is electoral politics.

      .custom-post-from {float:right; margin: 0 10px 10px; max-width: 50%; width: 100%; text-align: center; background: #000000; color: #ffffff; padding: 15px 0 30px; }
      .custom-post-from img { max-width: 85% !important; margin: 15px auto; filter: brightness(0) invert(1); }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h4 { font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h5 { font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from input[type=”email”] { font-size: 14px; color: #000 !important; width: 240px; margin: auto; height: 30px; box-shadow:none; border: none; padding: 0 10px; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-pen-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center right 14px; background-size:14px;}
      .custom-post-from input[type=”submit”] { font-weight: normal; margin: 15px auto; height: 30px; box-shadow: none; border: none; padding: 0 10px 0 35px; background-color: #1878f3; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 4px; display: inline-block; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-email-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 14px center; background-size: 14px; }

      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox { width: 90%; margin: auto; position: relative; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label { text-align: left; display: block; padding-left: 32px; margin-bottom: 0; cursor: pointer; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;
      -webkit-user-select: none;
      -moz-user-select: none;
      -ms-user-select: none;
      user-select: none;
      order: 1;
      color: #ffffff;
      font-weight: normal;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label a { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: underline; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input { position: absolute; opacity: 0; cursor: pointer; height: 100%; width: 24%; left: 0;
      right: 0; margin: 0; z-index: 3; order: 2;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:before { content: “f0c8”; font-family: Font Awesome 5 Free; color: #eee; font-size: 24px; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; line-height: 28px; color: #ffffff; width: 20px; height: 20px; margin-top: 5px; z-index: 2; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:before { content: “f14a”; font-weight: 600; color: #2196F3; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:after { content: “”; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:after { position: absolute; left: 2px; width: 18px; height: 18px; margin-top: 10px; background: #ffffff; top: 10px; margin: auto; z-index: 1; }
      .custom-post-from .error{ display: block; color: #ff6461; order: 3 !important;}

      The New York Times came closer to signaling Netanyahu’s implication in the current troubles. Isabel Kershner cites centrist opposition leader Yair Lapid, who “blamed the prime minister for the spiraling sense of chaos.” Kershner focuses on the likelihood that Israel will at some point in the near future have a coalition government including Mansour Abbas’ Islamic Raam party, which would mark a monumental change in Israeli politics. In the end, however, Kershner appears to believe that it’s still Netanyahu who will emerge from the rubble as the leader of whatever unstable political coalition he can cobble together.

      As the violence escalates, the world wonders what US President Joe Biden intends to do. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken was the first to express the administration’s take, which for the moment sounds like an endorsement of the status quo: “There is, first, a very clear and absolute distinction between a terrorist organization, Hamas, that is indiscriminately raining down rockets, in fact, targeting civilians, and Israel’s response, defending itself.” The idea that Biden’s administration might try, for once, to play the role of honest broker would seem dead in the coastal waters of Gaza.

      Blinken’s recognition of Palestinian suffering only appeared when he claimed that Israel has “an extra burden.” This, of course, implies that its main burden consists of “targeting terrorists” in response to indiscriminately launched rockets. The “extra burden” consists of trying “to prevent civilian deaths, noting that Palestinian children have been killed in Israeli strikes.”

      Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

      Extra burden:

      A responsibility supplementing the one Rudyard Kipling famously identified as “the white man’s burden,” which consisted of dominating “sullen peoples, Half devil and half child,” the kind of people who for their amusement launch rockets indiscriminately at white people.

      Contextual Note

      Thanks to the growing realization that Israel is firmly set on maintaining an apartheid state, for the first time in decades, US politicians have begun to wonder whether it makes any sense to continue the nation’s unconditional support of every Israeli government. Israel has continued expanding its illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories in direct violation of UN resolutions and the Geneva Convention. The current troubles began with Israel’s brazen attempt to evict Palestinian families from their homes in East Jerusalem and replace them with Jewish settlers, followed by the storming of Al-Aqsa Mosque.

      For Blinken, the social and historical context of these events simply doesn’t exist. He wants people to believe it all started with the launching of rockets by the Palestinians. Nor do context and historical reality interest Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III, who insisted that details are irrelevant when the US has vowed “‘ironclad support’ for Israel’s right to defend itself.” This is totally consistent with Biden’s promise, in a phone call this week to Netanyahu, of “unwavering support” for Israel’s “right to defend itself.”

      Blinken showed less concern for the possible war crimes now taking place than for the bad PR they might generate. “[W]henever we see civilian casualties, and particularly when we see children caught in the crossfire losing their lives, that has a powerful impact,” he said. Blinken worries about what “we see” and its  “impact” in the media. This implies that if we didn’t see it and if the impact was reduced, all would be well. Ignorance is bliss.

      Biden reinforced everyone’s expectation that there would be nothing new under the shining sun of US diplomacy when he offered this comment: “My hope is that we will see this coming to a conclusion sooner than later.” What conclusion is he thinking of? And why is an American president just hoping that something good will happen? Why isn’t he intervening to facilitate not a “conclusion” but a resolution? Some will point out that every US president’s hands are tied by a status quo that holds as its first commandment, thou shalt never criticize Israel, its leaders or its policies.

      Historical Note

      Following World War II, Western nations assumed the entire civilization’s shame at the crimes of Nazi Germany. The British used the newly created United Nations as the instrument by which the West could atone for Germany’s racist sins through the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. 

      Once that was done, the die was cast. The West, led by the British — who had assumed “responsibility” for the region of the former Ottoman Empire — decided how and at whose expense (not their own) the surviving European Jews might be rewarded. Giving them Palestine seemed like the easy way out for the Western world as a whole. The British wanted out anyway. It also had the advantage of establishing a state in the Middle East whose culture would be basically Western and European.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Neither the British, the Americans nor the French — all in various ways implicated in the new order to be established in the Middle East — imagined that Israel would evolve to become an aggressive nation increasingly focused on bullying its neighbors and claiming its own particular version of exceptionalism. French President Charles de Gaulle was the first to notice it, on the occasion of the Six-Day War in 1967. Western leaders may have naively believed that the same Arabs who allowed themselves to be bullied by the Turks for centuries would accept with docility the rule of their new masters, who claimed to be building a modern nation on socialist and egalitarian principles.

      In the first decade of Israel’s existence, the US refused to identify with the new nation’s interests, notably during the Suez Crisis in 1956 in which the Eisenhower administration countered the Franco-British alliance. It also viewed with hostility the presumed socialist ideology of Israel. At the time, the WASP (white Anglo-Saxon Protestant) elite maintained a lingering anti-Semitic bias. But as the Cold War evolved and the importance of the oil economy grew, leading to increasing tensions between the West and the Muslim world, by the 1980s, the US was on track formulating its current “unconditional,” “iron-clad” alliance with Israel.

      This gradual evolution toward a position of increasingly blind support of Israel has had a profound influence on Western media in its reporting on the enduring, increasingly unresolvable conflict between the Jewish state and its Arab inhabitants. Western news media have largely accepted the role of encouraging their audience to sympathize with white, essentially European and American Israelis who feel threatened in an alien, hostile Orient.

      Greg Philo in The Guardian shows that an analysis of Western media in its reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has, for decades, reflected “a strong emphasis on Israeli perspectives.” What better illustration than yesterday’s Washington Post: “Israeli jets strike Gaza; Hamas launches rockets as Israeli ground troops stand by”?

      *[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on Fair Observer.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 100 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Israel Ground Forces Shell Gaza as Fighting Intensifies

      by

      The surge in fighting left Israel in an unprecedented position — fighting Palestinian militants on its southern flank as it sought to head off its worst civil unrest in decades.Israeli ground forces carried out attacks on the Gaza Strip early Friday in an escalation of a conflict with Palestinian militants that had been waged by airstrikes from Israel and rockets from Gaza.It was not immediately clear if the attack was the prelude to a ground invasion against Hamas, the Islamist militant group that controls Gaza.An Israeli military spokesman, Lt. Col. Jonathan Conricus, initially said that “there are ground troops attacking in Gaza,” but later clarified that Israeli troops had not entered Gaza, suggesting the possibility of artillery fire from the outside. He provided no further details.The surge in fighting highlighted the unprecedented position Israel finds itself in — battling Palestinian militants on its southern flank as it seeks to head off its worst civil unrest in decades.It followed another day of clashes between Arab and Jewish mobs on the streets of Israeli cities, with the authorities calling up the army reserves and sending reinforcements of armed border police to the central city of Lod to try to head off what Israeli leaders have warned could become a civil war.Taken together, the two theaters of turmoil pointed to a step change in the grinding, decades-old conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. While violent escalations often follow a predictable trajectory, this latest bout, the worst in seven years, is rapidly evolving into a new kind of war — faster, more destructive and capable of spinning in unpredictable new directions.In Gaza, an impoverished coastal strip that was the crucible of a devastating seven-week war in 2014, Palestinian militants fired surprisingly large barrages of enhanced-range rockets — some 1,800 in three days — that reached far into Israel.Israel intensified its campaign of relentless airstrikes against Hamas targets there on Thursday, pulverizing buildings, offices and homes in strikes that have killed 103 people including 27 children, according to the Gaza health authorities.The funeral of members of Hamas after they were killed in an Israeli bombardment in Gaza City on Thursday.Samar Abu Elouf for The New York TimesSix civilians and a soldier have been killed by Hamas rockets inside Israel.Egyptian mediators arrived in Israel Thursday in a sooner-than-usual push to halt the spiraling conflict.Most alarming for Israel, though, was the violent ferment on its own sidewalks and streets, where days of rioting by Jewish vigilantes and Arab mobs showed no sign of abating.The unrest in several mixed-ethnicity cities, where angry young men stoned cars, set fire to mosques and synagogues, and attacked each other, signaled a collapse of law and order inside Israel on a scale not seen since the start of the second Palestinian uprising, or intifada, 21 years ago.The violence follows a month of boiling tensions in Jerusalem, where the threatened eviction of Palestinian families from their homes coincided with a spate of Arab attacks against Israeli Jews, and a march through the city by right-wing extremists chanting “Death to Arabs.”The jarring violence this week caused Israeli leaders, led by President Reuven Rivlin, to evoke the specter of civil war — a once unthinkable idea. “We need to solve our problems without causing a civil war that can be a danger to our existence,” Mr. Rivlin said. “The silent majority is not saying a thing, because it is utterly stunned.”Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Lod, a working-class city with a mixed Arab-Israeli population that has emerged as the center of the upheaval. Hulks of burned-out cars littered the streets where, a few nights earlier, Arab youths burned synagogues and cars, threw stones and let off sporadic rounds of gunfire, before gangs of Jewish vigilantes counterattacked and set their own fires. .Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking in the city of Lod on Thursday.Pool photo by Yuval ChenOn Thursday, a Jewish man was stabbed as he walked to a synagogue there, but survived.“There is no greater threat now than these riots,” said Mr. Netanyahu, who vowed to deploy the Israel Defense Forces to keep the peace in Lod. A day earlier, he described the violence as “anarchy” and said: “Nothing justifies the lynching of Jews by Arabs, and nothing justifies the lynching of Arabs by Jews.”To secure Lod, the government brought in thousands of armed border police from the occupied West Bank, and imposed an 8 p.m. curfew, but to little effect.Arab residents, who account for about 30 percent of the town’s 80,000 people, continued a campaign of stone-throwing, vandalism and arson, while Jewish extremists arrived from outside Lod, burning Arab cars and property. Arab protesters erected flaming roadblocks.As night fell there were signs that the violence might escalate when a large convoy of armed Jews in white vans moved into town.Palestinian leaders, however, said the talk of civil war by Jewish leaders was a distraction from what they called the true cause of the unrest in Lod — police brutality against Palestinian protesters and provocative actions by right-wing Israeli settler groups.“The police shot an Arab demonstrator in Lod,” said Ahmad Tibi, the leader of the Ta’al party and a member of Israel’s Parliament. “We don’t want bloodshed. We want to protest.”Israeli security forces on patrol in Lod on Thursday night.Ahmad Gharabli/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMr. Tibi said that Mr. Netanyahu, who has frequently aligned with far-right and nationalist parties to stay in power, had only himself to blame for the political tinderbox that has exploded with such ferocity across Israel.On Thursday evening, the State Department urged American citizens to reconsider traveling to Israel and warned against going to the occupied West Bank or Gaza. In an advisory, the department noted rocket attacks that could reach Jerusalem, protests and violence throughout Israel and a “dangerous and volatile” security environment in the Gaza Strip and on its borders.The trouble started on Monday, when a heavy-handed police raid at Jerusalem’s Al Aqsa Mosque — the third-holiest site in Islam, located atop a site also revered by Jews — set off an instant backlash.But beyond the images of police officers flinging stun grenades and firing rubber bullets inside the mosque, Palestinian outrage was also fueled by much wider, decades-old frustrations.Human Rights Watch recently accused Israel of perpetrating a form of apartheid, the racist legal system that once governed South Africa, citing a number of laws and regulations that it said systematically discriminate against Palestinians. Israel vehemently rejected that charge. But its security forces are now confronted with a swelling wave of fury from the country’s Arab Israeli minority, which complains of being treated as second-class citizens.“‘Coexistence’ means that both sides exist,” said Tamer Nafar, a famous rapper from Lod. “But so far there is only one side — the Jewish side.”The rocket attacks from Gaza are also quantitatively and qualitatively different from the last war in 2014. The more than 1,800 rockets Hamas and its allies have fired at Israel since Monday already represent a third of the total fired during the seven-week war in 2014.A house that was hit by a rocket fired overnight from Gaza in Petah Tikva, Israel.Dan Balilty for The New York TimesIsraeli intelligence has estimated that Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian militant groups have about 30,000 rockets and mortar projectiles stashed in Gaza, indicating that despite the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of the coastal territory, the militants have managed to amass a vast arsenal.The rockets have also demonstrated a longer range than those fired in previous conflicts, reaching as far as Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.They have also proven more effective. In the 2014 war, they killed a total of six civilians inside Israel, the same number killed in the last three days.Those casualties appeared to be a product of Hamas’s new tactic of firing more than 100 missiles simultaneously, thwarting the American-financed Iron Dome missile-defense system, which Israeli officials say is 90 percent effective at intercepting rockets before they land inside Israel.Israeli’s Iron Dome air defense system launching to intercept rockets fired from Gaza on Thursday.Ariel Schalit/Associated PressGaza residents have no such protection against Israeli airstrikes, which crushed three multistory buildings in the strip after residents were warned to evacuate. Israeli officials said that the buildings housed Hamas operations and that they were striving to limit civilian casualties, but many Gaza residents viewed the Israeli attacks as a form of collective punishment.Thursday was supposed to be a day of celebration for Palestinians as they marked the end of the holy month of Ramadan, a day when Muslims typically gather to pray, wear new clothes and share a family meal. In Jerusalem, tens of thousands of worshipers gathered at dawn outside the Aqsa Mosque, some waving Palestinian flags and a banner showing an image of Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas.Muslims gathered for prayers outside the Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem on Thursday.Mahmoud Illean/Associated PressIn Gaza, though, it was a somber day of funerals, fear and missile strikes. Some families buried their dead, others laid out prayer mats beside buildings recently destroyed in Israeli airstrikes, and still others came under attack from Israeli drones hovering overhead.“Save me,” pleaded Maysoun al-Hatu, 58, after she was wounded in a missile strike outside her daughter’s house in Gaza, according to a witness. An ambulance arrived moments later, but it was too late. Ms. al-Hatu was dead.American and Egyptian diplomats were heading to Israel to begin de-escalation talks. Egyptian mediators played a key role in ending the 2014 war in Gaza, but this time there is little optimism they can achieve a quick result.Israeli military officials have said their mission is to stop the rockets from Gaza, and the military moved tanks and troops into place along the border with Gaza on Thursday in preparation for a possible ground invasion.A residential building that was destroyed in an Israeli airstrike on Thursday in Gaza City.Hosam Salem for The New York TimesThe decision to extend the campaign is ultimately political. Analysts said that a ground operation would likely incur high casualties, and it was unclear if the troop deployment was anything more than a threat.But the political calculation grew more complicated on Thursday after the collapse of negotiations between opposition parties seeking to form a new government.Naftali Bennett, an ultranationalist former settler leader who opposes Palestinian statehood, pulled out of the talks, citing the state of emergency in several Israeli cities.His withdrawal increases the likelihood of Israel holding a general election later this summer — in what would be its fifth in just over two years. And the collapse of the talks appears to benefit Mr. Netanyahu, making it impossible for opposition parties to form an alliance large enough to oust him from office.Mr. Netanyahu, who is on trial on corruption charges, is serving as caretaker prime minister until a new government can be formed.On the Palestinian side, the indefinite postponement last month of elections by the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, created a vacuum that Hamas is more than willing to fill.Isabel Kershner contributed reporting from Lod, Israel; Iyad Abuheweila from Gaza City; Patrick Kingsley, Irit Pazner Garshowitz and Myra Noveck from Jerusalem; Gabby Sobelman from Rehovot, Israel; Mona el-Naggar and Vivian Yee from Cairo; Megan Specia from London; Steven Erlanger from Brussels; and Lara Jakes from Washington. More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Yang Walks Back Stance on Israel After Drawing Criticism

      by

      Mr. Yang said his initial statement in support of Israel, which drew criticism from progressives, “failed to acknowledge pain on both sides.”As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict erupted this week, Andrew Yang issued a statement on Monday that in years past might have seemed politically unremarkable, perhaps even expected, from a leading candidate to be New York City’s next mayor.“I’m standing with the people of Israel who are coming under bombardment attacks, and condemn the Hamas terrorists,” Mr. Yang said. “The people of N.Y.C. will always stand with our brothers and sisters in Israel who face down terrorism and persevere.”Then came the backlash.At a campaign stop in Queens, Mr. Yang was confronted about his statement and its failure to mention the Palestinians, including children, who were killed in the airstrikes. Mr. Yang was uninvited from an event hosted by the Astoria Welfare Society to distribute food to families at the end of Ramadan.Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat who has condemned the “occupation of Palestine,” called Mr. Yang’s statement “utterly shameful,” noting that it came during Ramadan.And Mr. Yang acknowledged that volunteers with his own campaign were upset by his statement, prompting him to release a new one on Wednesday admitting that his first was “overly simplistic” and “failed to acknowledge the pain and suffering on both sides.”“I mourn for every Palestinian life taken before its time as I do for every Israeli,” he said.Mr. Yang’s clarification reflects the reality that what was once a given in New York City politics — unquestioning support for Israel — has become a much more complicated proposition for Democratic candidates.New York City has the largest Jewish population in the world outside of Israel. While the mayor has no formal foreign policy powers, the position often affords opportunities to showcase New York’s posture toward Israel.Mayor Robert F. Wagner in 1957 barred a welcome for a Saudi king he deemed anti-Jewish. Mayor Edward I. Koch zealously expressed support for Israel and had an argument at City Hall with the Austrian foreign minister in 1984 about whether the Palestine Liberation Organization served as the voice of Palestinian people.But wholehearted, uncritical support for Israel is no longer automatic among officials or candidates.In recent years, many members of a growing progressive left have criticized the Israeli government for its treatment of Palestinians and are pushing for public acknowledgment of Palestinians’ suffering.The shift mirrors the way that on a national level, some Democrats have challenged the decades-long norm of blanket support for Israel, while many liberal American Jews have become increasingly vocal about their discomfort with the policies of the Israeli government.The differing views were apparent among the mayoral contenders.Among those considered to be more centrist candidates, some maintained a stance similar to that of Mr. Yang’s initial statement. Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president and another leading candidate, said on Monday, “Israelis live under the constant threat of terrorism and war, and New York City’s bond with Israel remains unbreakable.”Asked on Wednesday if he had anything to add to his original statement, Mr. Adams said that “no act of aggression can justify the deaths of innocent children.”“Never again should religious sites be targeted — whether it be a synagogue or a mosque,” he said. Raymond J. McGuire, a former Citi executive, interrupted a news conference in Times Square on Monday to make a statement of support for Israel.“There’s clearly terrorism that has taken place in Jerusalem. Hamas just claimed credit for rocket attacks aimed at Jerusalem,” Mr. McGuire said. “We stand with our brothers and sisters from Israel.”But others offered more nuanced statements. Dianne Morales, a former nonprofit executive, said on Tuesday that the “world needs leaders who recognize humanity and the dignity of all lives. Whether in N.Y.C., Colombia, Brazil or Israel-Palestine, state violence is wrong. Targeting civilians is wrong. Killing children is wrong. ”Asked on the Brian Lehrer show on WNYC on Wednesday about whether Israelis or Palestinians should bear more of the blame, Kathryn Garcia, a former sanitation commissioner, said it was not appropriate for the mayor “to be doing foreign policy.” But she said she wanted to support the diverse communities in New York City that have ties to the parts of the world embroiled in conflict.“Clearly the state of Israel needs to exist,” she said. “We have strong partnerships with them. They’re like our fourth largest trading partner with the City of New York. But this escalation of violence is incredibly sad to see.”In a statement on Wednesday, Shaun Donovan, a former federal housing secretary, criticized Mr. Yang’s remarks, saying that they lacked “responsibility and empathy.”.css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-w739ur{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-w739ur{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1dg6kl4{margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:15px;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-1rh1sk1{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-1rh1sk1 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-1rh1sk1 em{font-style:italic;}.css-1rh1sk1 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#ccc;text-decoration-color:#ccc;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}“Kids are not terrorists, and whatever our differences on this emotionally challenging issue, we should at least display a common humanity,” Mr. Donovan said, referring to the fact that children were among those killed in the conflict. Scott M. Stringer, the city comptroller and only Jewish candidate in the race, said he condemned recent “horrific acts of terrorism against innocent Israelis” in Jerusalem and said he supported Israel’s right to defend itself from extremist groups.But Mr. Stringer, one of three candidates consistently characterized as progressive, also urged the Israeli government to stop “wrongful evictions of Palestinian families, and for all parties to exercise caution and restraint to prevent further suffering and loss of precious life.”“And as we near the end of Ramadan, we must recognize and mourn the Israeli and Palestinian lives that have been so tragically lost,” Mr. Stringer said.The city’s Orthodox Jewish community has long been considered a politically salient voting bloc and has been courted by both Mr. Adams and Mr. Yang, who has been endorsed by several ultra-Orthodox leaders.The endorsements came after Mr. Yang defended the yeshiva education system, which has faced criticism over the failure of some schools to provide a basic secular education: A 2019 city report found that roughly two dozen Hasidic yeshivas had fallen short of city standards in math, science and English education.In a race where voter interest has so far been low, the endorsement of influential religious leaders could be a boon to any campaign. But even in neighborhoods with large ultra-Orthodox populations, like Borough Park, Brooklyn, there were mixed feelings about Mr. Yang’s initial statement and subsequent turnaround.“If you’re talking about the Jewish community, if someone is pro-Israel, that will always be seen as a plus,” said Yoel Greenfeld, 22, as he left a synagogue on Borough Park’s main shopping street at midday. “But then for Yang to say something else a day later because of A.O.C.? Let me tell you something, people around here think A.O.C. is a complete joke.”The Astoria Welfare Society rescinded its invitation to Mr. Yang because his tweet felt like an insult to Muslims in New York City, the group’s secretary general, Mohamed Jabed Uddin, said.“It is like he is blatantly saying to Muslim New Yorkers that he does not care about us, our issues, the attacks on our houses or worship,” said Mr. Uddin. “He will only take a principled stand when it will pay off politically. That is not the type of leadership that we want for this city.”Assemblyman Ron Kim of Queens, a progressive who has endorsed Mr. Yang for mayor, said that he thought Mr. Yang’s initial statement was “inhumane,” and he said he had called Mr. Yang on Tuesday to relay his concerns. “He came off as taking a one-sided, 100 percent pro-Israel dominating position, with no nuance, and I know that that’s not what he believes and I know that those aren’t the values that guide him, especially when there are innocent people dying,” he said.Jeffery C. Mays and Michael Gold contributed reporting. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Who Is Yair Lapid, Israel’s Would-Be Prime Minister?

      by

      Benjamin Netanyahu dismissed the former television host and centrist opposition leader as a lightweight. Now Mr. Lapid has a chance to oust him.JERUSALEM — Yair Lapid, the centrist politician and former media celebrity whose party took second place in Israel’s March election, had pledged to forgo the premiership if that’s what it would take to form a coalition of diverse parties that could oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from power.The unusual exercise in political humility stemmed not from modesty, but from the difficulties he knew he would face in mustering enough parliamentary support to form an alternative government.Now, after Mr. Netanyahu failed to form a viable coalition by Tuesday’s midnight deadline, Mr. Lapid’s political skills and sincerity will be put to the test. The president, Reuven Rivlin, has given him the next shot at cobbling together a government that might send Mr. Netanyahu into the opposition and end Israel’s political gridlock.Mr. Lapid’s party, Yesh Atid (There is a Future), won 17 seats in the inconclusive election, Israel’s fourth in two years. But its path to power is hampered by the disparate nature of the anti-Netanyahu bloc, which is made up of numerous small parties with clashing agendas. Some of its right-wing elements view Mr. Lapid as too left-wing to lead an alternative government.Mr. Netanyahu had cast his own campaign as a head-to-head contest against Mr. Lapid, dismissing him as a lightweight.Mr. Lapid ran a quiet campaign calling for preserving liberal democracy and thwarting Mr. Netanyahu’s stated goal of forming a government made up of right-wing and religious parties, reliant on ultra-Orthodox rabbis and ultranationalist extremists.Mr. Lapid last month in Tel Aviv.Amir Cohen/ReutersMr. Lapid has also called to protect the judiciary from Mr. Netanyahu, who is standing trial on corruption charges and who, together with his right-wing and religious allies, intended to curb the powers of the Supreme Court and possibly seek some kind of immunity from prosecution.Speaking to party activists before the election, Mr. Lapid described the coalition that Mr. Netanyahu wanted to form as “an extremist, homophobic, chauvinistic, racist and anti-democratic government,” and said, “it’s a government where nobody represents working people, the people who pay taxes and believe in the rule of law.”As a former finance minister in the Netanyahu-led government formed in 2013, Mr. Lapid instituted reforms meant to share the national burden more equally between mainstream Israelis and ultra-Orthodox men who choose full-time Torah study over work and army service, and depend on charity and welfare payouts. Most of his policies were undone by succeeding governments.In three elections in 2019 and 2020, Mr. Lapid’s Yesh Atid ran in a three-party, centrist alliance called Blue and White, led by Benny Gantz, a former army chief of staff. Mr. Lapid parted ways with Blue and White after Mr. Gantz reneged on a main election promise and joined forces with Mr. Netanyahu to form an uneasy — and short-lived — unity government after last year’s election.After a highly successful career as a journalist and popular television host, Mr. Lapid was the surprise of the 2013 election when, as a political novice, his party surpassed expectations and placed second, turning him into the chief power broker in the formation of the coalition.His father, Yosef Lapid, a Holocaust survivor and an antireligious politician, once also headed a centrist party and served as justice minister. His mother, Shulamit Lapid, is a well-known novelist.An amateur boxer known for his casual-chic black clothing, Mr. Lapid launched his political career on the back of the social justice protests of 2011, giving voice to Israel’s struggling middle class. On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he has stuck to the middle ground, presenting safe positions within the Israeli Jewish consensus. He has said that he supports a two-state solution but opposes any division of Jerusalem, which the Palestinians envision as their future capital. More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Netanyahu Fails to Form New Israeli Government, Prolonging Deadlock

      by

      The prime minister’s opponents may now get a chance to oust him from power. But it is too soon to write off Benjamin Netanyahu, a political survivor.JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel failed to form a new government by the midnight Tuesday deadline, putting his political future in jeopardy as he stands trial on corruption charges and prolonging a political deadlock that has only worsened after four elections in two years.Israel’s president, Reuven Rivlin, may now give a rival, eclectic camp of anti-Netanyahu parties a chance to form a government, which could oust Mr. Netanyahu from power after 12 consecutive years in office.Mr. Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud party is by far the largest on Israel’s fractured political scene, having won 30 seats in a general election in March. Despite that, he was not able to muster enough coalition partners to command a majority of at least 61 seats in the 120-member Parliament.His hopes for a right-wing and religious coalition ultimately fell short because his far-right allies refused to join a government supported by a small Islamist Arab party. The Arab party, Raam, was willing to back a Netanyahu administration in return for benefits for Israel’s Arab minority.Mr. Netanyahu also failed in a last-gasp effort to persuade a right-wing rival, Naftali Bennett, to join him in a power-sharing agreement that would have seen the pair take turns as prime minister.Mr. Bennett had dismissed the offer, saying that even with his support Mr. Netanyahu could not muster a majority.Three minutes before midnight, Likud issued a terse statement blaming Mr. Bennett for foiling Mr. Netanyahu’s chances by refusing to commit to a right-wing government, “which would certainly have led to the formation of a government joined by additional members of Parliament.”Mr. Rivlin may now ask one of Mr. Netanyahu’s rivals — representing a disparate group of parties ranging from the pro-settlement right to the secular left — to try to cobble together a governing coalition that would send the prime minister into the opposition. Or Mr. Rivlin could ask Parliament to put forward a candidate.He has three days to make that decision. His office said that he would restart the process on Wednesday morning by contacting each of the political parties represented in Parliament.Mr. Netanyahu would still remain in power as a caretaker prime minister until a new government is formed. If no one can form a government, Israel will be heading to a fifth election.But with his failure to build a majority coalition, Mr. Netanyahu may have lost his best chance of gaining some kind of legal immunity from criminal prosecution. Charged with bribery, fraud and breach of trust, he has denied wrongdoing and insists the cases against him will collapse in court.A protest against Mr. Netanyahu outside his residence in Jerusalem last month. Sebastian Scheiner/Associated PressSome of his political allies had pledged to make moves or advance legislation that could put his trial on hold until he leaves office. A new Netanyahu government could also have appointed a more sympathetic attorney general to replace the current one, whose term is up early next year.The failure to create a new government could also prolong a political stalemate that has left Israel without a state budget for two consecutive years in the middle of a pandemic, and has delayed appointments to several key administrative and judicial posts.The largest party challenging Likud, and the runner-up in the election, is Yesh Atid, a centrist group that won 17 seats. But its leader, Yair Lapid, a former finance minister, does not have an easy path to forming a government either.The bloc opposing Mr. Netanyahu is made up of numerous other small parties with clashing agendas. The smaller right-wing parties in the bloc view Mr. Lapid as too left-wing to lead the government.Instead, discussions in Mr. Lapid’s bloc have centered around the possibility of Mr. Lapid sharing power with another candidate, such as Mr. Bennett, the leader of Yamina, a right-wing party that won just seven seats. Under such an agreement, Mr. Bennett might lead the country for a year, before handing the prime ministry to Mr. Lapid.Mr. Lapid’s party has championed taxpaying middle-class Israelis and called for limits on the autonomy afforded to Israel’s ultra-Orthodox community — many of whom are exempted from military service, and study religious texts instead of entering the work force. That has made him an enemy of the ultra-Orthodox parties that have long kept Mr. Netanyahu in power.Mr. Lapid pledged during the election campaign to put his ego aside and concede the premiership if that was what it took to unseat Mr. Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister.Yair Lapid, center, the leader of the centrist Yesh Atid party, pledged during the election campaign to concede the premiership if that’s what it took to unseat Mr. Netanyahu.Amir Levy/Getty ImagesTo make up a majority, this bloc would also need to rely on the support of an Arab party, something they have been reluctant to do in the past. Even if they succeed in forming a government with the limited goal of steadying the country after a long period of political chaos, many analysts believe its heterogeneity would make it short lived.Mr. Bennett is also seeking a chance to try to form the next government. He has said that his preference is to build a right-wing coalition including Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud and the religious parties but, failing that, he would work to form a more diverse “unity” government including parties from the anti-Netanyahu bloc.If no government has been formed within the allotted time — 28 days for a lawmaker other than Mr. Netanyahu, or up to five weeks for a candidate nominated by Parliament — the assembly will automatically dissolve itself and Israelis will head back to the ballot box for the fifth time since the spring of 2019.Aside from the country’s usual tensions between secular and religious, right-wing and left-wing, and Jewish and Arab, Israelis have become increasingly divided about Mr. Netanyahu himself. Those on the ideological right are now split between pro- and anti-Netanyahu camps.Mr. Netanyahu had the solid support of only 52 lawmakers, from his own Likud, two loyal ultra-Orthodox parties and a far-right alliance. Three right-wing parties ultimately chose not to return him to government.In total, 13 parties entered Parliament, all but Likud and Yesh Atid with seats in the single digits.Any government that is formed is likely to be unstable and dependent on the demands and whims of small parties with disproportionate power.This latest failure to form a government is a severe blow to Mr. Netanyahu. He campaigned hard for the March election and had staked his fortunes on Israel’s successful vaccination drive, which had allowed the economy and cultural life to reopen just in time for the ballot.But commentators say it is still too early to write him off.He similarly failed to form a government after two elections in 2019. But when his rivals also failed to cement a coalition, he remained in place as a caretaker prime minister. An election in April 2020 produced an ill-fated unity government that collapsed after seven months of political and administrative paralysis.Some analysts say that Mr. Netanyahu, a political survivor, is happy to function as a caretaker prime minister, riding the wave of electoral turmoil from one transitional government to another, as long as he remains in office. And if the latest imbroglio ends in a fifth election, he is likely to run again. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Netanyahu Offers Rival a Year in Office, in Last-Minute Bid for Government

      by

      With a deadline fast approaching, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel is still pushing to form a new coalition.JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said on Monday that he would be willing to hand over leadership for one year to a longtime right-wing rival, Naftali Bennett, in a last-ditch effort to cobble together a new government.Mr. Netanyahu, who has spent the last 12 years in office and is now standing trial on corruption charges, announced the offer just ahead of a deadline to form a government, in the wake of Israel’s fourth inconclusive election in two years.The arrangement, part of a rotation agreement, would be a highly unusual one since Mr. Bennett, who served briefly as defense minister in a previous government, leads a small, pro-settlement party, Yamina, that holds just seven seats in the 120-seat Parliament.Mr. Netanyahu wrote about the offer in a post on Facebook less than 36 hours before his time to form a new government runs out at midnight on Tuesday. Mr. Bennett appeared to dismiss the offer as political spin in his initial response.The last election in March has left Mr. Netanyahu weakened and, so far, unable to muster a coalition that would command a parliamentary majority.Mr. Netanyahu’s conservative Likud party won the most seats of any party in the election, securing 30 seats in the 120-seat Parliament, but had been endorsed for the premiership by only 52 lawmakers from Likud, two loyal ultra-Orthodox parties and a far-right alliance called Religious Zionism.Even with Mr. Bennett’s Yamina on board, Mr. Netanyahu would still be two seats short of the 61 needed to form a majority government.Still, the support of Mr. Bennett’s party could be key, and he has been negotiating both with the Netanyahu-led bloc and with an opposition bloc made up of parties from across the spectrum that are determined to unseat Mr. Netanyahu. That group also had no easy path to power.A banner for Naftali Bennett and his Yamina party in Jerusalem ahead of last month’s elections.Ahmad Gharabli/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMr. Netanyahu said Mr. Bennett had demanded to serve for one year in a rotating premiership while negotiating with both sides, playing each against the other.“It’s not exactly a routine demand from the person who heads a party with seven seats,” Mr. Netanyahu said of Mr. Bennett’s stipulation. “But the consideration that guides me is what is at stake now — the good of the country: A right-wing government and not a left-wing government.” Mr. Bennett subsequently denied having made the demand.If Mr. Bennett were to take up Mr. Netanyahu’s offer, it is unclear how much power Mr. Bennett would actually wield given the imbalance between their respective parties.Mr. Bennett has said he would prefer to sit in a coherent right-wing government but noted that he was waiting for Mr. Netanyahu to show he had a majority. His immediate response to Mr. Netanyahu’s offer was dismissive.“I have just heard Netanyahu’s proposal, and I have to say it is unclear to me,” Mr. Bennett said. “I did not demand the premiership from Netanyahu, but rather I asked for a government. And that, to my regret, he does not have.”In order to form a government, Mr. Netanyahu needs the direct or passive support of Raam, a small Islamist party whose Hebrew acronym stands for the United Arab List, which holds four seats in Parliament. But most of the Religious Zionism party has so far ruled out relying on the support of the Arab party, which they say supports terrorism.Mr. Netanyahu’s only other option is to attract defectors from the opposition bloc. Mr. Netanyahu said that if Mr. Bennett and his Yamina party joined forces to form a solid bloc of 59 seats, others would come.Mr. Bennett and Mr. Netanyahu during a meeting of the Israeli Parliament last year.Sebastian Scheiner/Associated PressThe latest power-sharing proposal could offer Israel a way out of its prolonged political deadlock. But even with Mr. Netanyahu in the background, it could highlight the cracks in his carefully curated image of indispensability.Mr. Netanyahu has presented himself as the only candidate qualified and experienced enough to secure Israel’s future in a volatile region, at a time when the Biden administration is pursuing negotiations aimed at restoring the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran despite Israeli objections.But questions of trust and stability would hang over any new government with Mr. Bennett at least nominally at the helm, after a similar agreement lasted just months.Mr. Netanyahu’s last government was also based on a rotation agreement with his main coalition partner, Benny Gantz, the leader of the centrist Blue and White party. The two joined forces in a unity government after last year’s election draw.Mr. Netanyahu held the office of prime minister first, with the agreement that Mr. Gantz would take over in November 2021. But after only seven months, Mr. Netanyahu created a budget crisis that led to new elections, before Mr. Gantz could get close to heading the government.What many Israelis are hoping for now is an end to the gridlock that paralyzed the government for years. The political morass left Israel without a state budget for two consecutive years in the middle of a pandemic and has delayed appointments to several key administrative and judicial posts.Aside from the country’s usual tensions between secular and religious, right-wing and left-wing, and Jewish and Arab, the main division had increasingly focused on Mr. Netanyahu himself. Even the ideological right has been split between pro- and anti-Netanyahu camps, largely over the leader’s fitness for the office of prime minister amid his legal troubles.Mr. Netanyahu is expected to appear in court regularly now that the evidentiary stage of his trial on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust, which he denies, has begun. More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Palestinian Vote Delayed, Prolonging Split for West Bank and Gaza

      by

      President Mahmoud Abbas said elections could not take place unless Israel allowed voting in East Jerusalem. But privately, he also fears a poor result for his party, officials said.JERUSALEM — When the Palestinian Authority called in January for parliamentary elections, many Palestinians hoped the vote — the first in the occupied territories since 2006 — would revive Palestinian discourse, re-energize the independence movement and end a 14-year division between Palestinian leaders in the occupied West Bank and Gaza.But those hopes were dashed Thursday night when President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority announced that the vote, scheduled for May 22, would be delayed indefinitely.The news compounded an unsettled political dynamic across the occupied territories and the state of Israel, where both Israeli and Palestinian societies remain racked by political stalemate and division, where tensions are rising in Jerusalem and Gaza, and a return to peace negotiations appears less likely than ever.The official reason for the postponement was the refusal by the Israeli government to confirm that it would allow voting in East Jerusalem, which was annexed by Israel after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. East Jerusalem is mainly populated by Palestinians who participate in elections for the Palestinian Authority, a semiautonomous institution that exerts partial jurisdiction in other parts of the occupied territories.“We decided to postpone the legislative elections until guaranteeing that Jerusalem and its people take part,” said Mr. Abbas in a speech in Ramallah. “We don’t give up Jerusalem.”But the postponement also served another purpose: Mr. Abbas was concerned that if the election went ahead, his party, Fatah, might lose ground to two Fatah splinter groups, according to a Palestinian official and a Western diplomat briefed by the Palestinian leadership.A family in a Gaza Strip refugee camp watching  President Mahmoud Abbas announce the election delay Thursday.Said Khatib/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesIsraeli officials, meanwhile, were concerned that the elections would lead to a greater role in the Palestinian leadership for Hamas, the militant Islamist group that wrested control of Gaza from Mr. Abbas in 2007, and which has never recognized Israel.“It is a big mistake to go to these elections,” Kamil Abu Rokon, an Israeli general who oversaw administrative aspects of the occupation until earlier this month, said shortly before leaving his post. “My recommendation is not to cooperate.”Analysts also said the Israeli leaders were happy to keep their Palestinian counterparts divided, since it undermines the Palestinians’ ability to pursue a final status agreement with Israel as a unified bloc.Hamas condemned Mr. Abbas’s decision, describing it as a “coup” that lacked popular support.The development comes amid a volatile period across the West Bank, Gaza and the state of Israel. Israeli politics is also at an impasse, following an election in March — Israel’s fourth in two years — in which both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his opponents failed to win a workable majority.In Jerusalem, the situation is tense, following a march last week by far-right Jewish supremacists who chanted “Death to Arabs,” attacks on both Palestinians and Jews, and the provocative Israeli decision, now rescinded, to close a central plaza in East Jerusalem where Palestinians enjoy gathering during the ongoing month of Ramadan.That unrest broke months of relative calm in Gaza, where militants fired dozens of rockets toward Israel last weekend to protest the situation in Jerusalem.The city is at the heart of the pretext provided by Mr. Abbas to postpone elections.Under the interim agreements signed in the 1990s between Israeli and Palestinian leaders known as the Oslo Accords, the Israeli government is obliged to allow Palestinian elections in East Jerusalem.President Mahmoud Abbas casting a ballot in the Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006, the last time elections were held.Muhammed Muheisen/Associated PressBut Israel has neither blocked the election nor agreed to allow it. The Israeli government has not made a decision either way, an Israeli official confirmed, despite requests by the Palestinian leadership. The Israeli police have detained several representatives of Palestinian parties who attempted to campaign in the city. Palestinian officials said that to proceed with an election without East Jerusalem would be tantamount to giving up Palestinian claims on the city and its sacred Islamic sites, including the Aqsa mosque.“It’s not that we are trying to avoid elections,” said Ziad Abu Amr, deputy prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, and an adviser to Mr. Abbas. “Jerusalem cannot be forsaken or abandoned. You can’t surrender to the fait accompli that Israel tries to impose on Jerusalem.”But insiders said Mr. Abbas had an ulterior motive for postponement.Long the engine of the Palestinian national movement, Mr. Abbas’s party, Fatah, now faces unprecedented challenges, not only from its longtime rival Hamas but also from ex-Fatah grandees whose campaigns chipped away at support for their former party.Were elections to go ahead, Fatah’s supporters would be forced to choose among three Fatah-linked factions — the official party; a splinter group led by an exiled former security chief, Muhammad Dahlan; and a second breakaway faction, headed by Nasser al-Kidwa, a former envoy to the United Nations, and Marwan Barghouti, a popular militant serving multiple life sentences in an Israeli prison for five counts of murder.In the most recent poll, Mr. Abbas’s faction still came out on top, with about a quarter of the vote. But it was projected to fall far short of an overall majority because nearly as many voters said they would vote for the rival Fatah groups. Hamas polled under nine percent.No Palestinian official would admit publicly this week that these factors affected Mr. Abbas’s thinking. But speaking on the condition of anonymity, a Palestinian official and a Western diplomat briefed by the Palestinians said that he feared losing influence to his former allies.And after Mr. Kidwa and Mr. Barghouti broke with Mr. Abbas in March, a senior Palestinian official said in an interview with The New York Times that the move put the elections at risk because it risked undermining Fatah.Supporters of an exiled former Fatah security chief, Mohammed Dahlan,  protesting the election delay in Gaza City on Thursday.Mohammed Abed/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images“Fatah’s situation needs to be strong, it needs to lead the Palestine Liberation Organization and the national project,” said Wassel Abu Yousef, a member of the executive committee of the P.L.O., the official representative of the Palestinian people. “If there is harm to the national project, there will be heavy and powerful voices that will be in favor of postponing the elections.”Some Palestinians met the postponement with a shrug. Many felt the elections would not have occurred in a particularly free environment, while some always suspected they would be canceled. Others felt voting for a Palestinian Parliament would have little effect on the biggest problem in their lives: the Israeli occupation.Elections suggest “there is a sovereign entity in which people are participating in a democratic process,” said Yara Hawari, a senior analyst at Al Shabaka, a Palestinian research group. “But you can’t have a full democracy under occupation.”Many Palestinians were nevertheless furious at being deprived of a rare chance to choose their representatives. Crowds of protesters, many of whom were too young to vote in the last Palestinian elections, demonstrated against the decision in both the West Bank and Gaza.“The people demand the ballot box,” they chanted.Muhammad Shehada, a 28-year-old unemployed civil engineer from Gaza City, called the decision “a big disappointment.” The situation in Jerusalem was no reason to cancel the elections, he said: “The occupation controls Jerusalem, whether the elections are held or not.”The lack of elections also raises the specter of intra-Palestinian violence, since different factions will now have no peaceful forum in which to air their grievances and express their frustrations, said Mkhaimar Abusada, a political scientist at Al Azhar University in Gaza City.“Many Palestinians were hoping that elections would ease the tension and friction between the factions,” said Dr. Abusada. But the election delay, he said, “will leave the Palestinians fighting against each other.”Iyad Abuhweila contributed reporting from Gaza City, and Irit Pazner Garshowitz from Jerusalem. More