Middle East and North Africa

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats’ Ilhan Omar defence weakened by party’s own attacks over Israel

      by

      Democrats’ Ilhan Omar defence weakened by party’s own attacks over IsraelParty’s criticism of Omar’s Israel position has greased the path for Republicans to oust her from the foreign affairs committee The resolution that set in motion the removal of the only African immigrant, Muslim and former resident of a refugee camp on the congressional committee overseeing US foreign policy paid scant attention to Ilhan Omar’s views on anything but a single issue: Israel.“Omar has attempted to undermine the relationship between the United States and Israel,” said the author of the resolution, Republican congressman Max Miller. “She has disqualified herself from serving on the foreign affairs committee.”The Democratic leadership accused Republicans of a vendetta. Omar said she was targeted as a Muslim immigrant who “needs to be silenced”, and that “when you push power, power pushes back”.But Democratic attempts to defend the Minnesota congresswoman were undercut by the party’s own record of attacking Omar over her statements about Israel almost from the day she was sworn in four years ago, greasing the path for Republicans to vote her off the foreign affairs committee on Thursday.Several Jewish American organisations came out in support of Omar, including Jewish Voice for Peace Action, a group lobbying for a change in US policy on Israel.“These attacks on Representative Omar are about her identity as a Black Muslim progressive woman. But this cannot be removed from the fact that she wants to hold the Israeli government accountable and speak out for Palestinian human rights,” said its political director, Beth Miller.Miller said that while she welcomed the support of the Democratic leadership for Omar in Thursday’s vote, it was hamstrung by its own criticisms of her.“Since she got to office she has been vocally opposed to Israeli occupation and speaking out for Palestinian human rights. And time and time again members of her own party have attacked her for it,” she said.“The actions of the Democratic leadership, and the failure to not just defend her, but sometimes jump on attacks against her, has helped foster an environment that allowed this to happen.”Max Miller’s resolution to remove Omar repeatedly cited Democratic criticisms of her statements on Israel and allegations of antisemitism.“Congresswoman Omar clearly cannot be an objective decision-maker on the foreign affairs committee given her biases against Israel and against the Jewish people,” he said when introducing the resolution.Omar has apologised for the wording of some of her statements while sticking by her points, including criticism of the influence of groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and pro-Israel money on US politics.Several liberal Jewish American groups, including J Street, Americans for Peace Now, and the New Israel Fund, said that none of Omar’s policies or statements merited her removal from the committee. They added that accusations against her by the Republican speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, seem “especially exploitative in light of the rampant promotion of antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories by him and his top deputies amid a surge in dangerous right-wing antisemitism”.The groups noted that McCarthy himself had deleted a tweet accusing Jewish billionaires of trying to “buy” an election.But while Republican leaders may not really care about antisemitism, they are serious about defending Israeli governments from criticism. Many Democrats support them in that.Miller said the criticisms of Omar were less about the language she used than trying to silence her.“These attempts to smear and attack her, to police her language, are all part of attempt to silence and threaten anyone who trying to speak out against the Israeli government,” she said.As Omar’s record on the foreign affairs committee shows, she rarely drew public criticism from fellow Democrats even for strident criticisms of US foreign policy in other parts of the world, including accusations that it undermined democracy and helped to fuel terrorism.At a hearing on the erosion of democracy in sub-Saharan Africa in 2020, the Democratic chair at the time, Karen Bass, spoke of the US as “the global champion for democracy”. Omar, on the other hand, asked about the US counter-terrorism training of security forces responsible for massacres in Cameroon and of coup leaders in Mali.“This trend of supporting militarised brutality in the name of counterterrorism is widespread in the continent. I have mentioned Cameroon and Mali, but I could easily mention Somalia, Mozambique, Kenya, or a number of other countries in the continent,” Omar said.At a hearing on US-Africa relations a year earlier, Omar agreed with a witness from the conservative Heritage Foundation that Saudi Arabian promotion of Wahhabism in Africa “has contributed to the rise of jihadist thinking and terrorist recruitment on the continent”.Then Omar asked: “Is it fair to say that our unwavering support for the Saudi government has been counterproductive to our security goals in Africa?”.Omar also used the hearing to challenge claims by the US Africa Command, responsible for American military operations on the continent, that its escalating use of drone strikes in her homeland, Somalia, had not resulted in civilian casualties.None of this brought the attention or orchestrated backlash prompted by her views on Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians.The Republican chair of the foreign affairs committee, Michael McCaul, made plain that his concern lay with Omar positions on this one issue.“It’s just that her worldview of Israel is so diametrically opposed to the committee’s. I don’t mind having differences of opinion, but this goes beyond that,” he said.Some of the most furious and, according to Omar’s supporters, unreasoned criticism came over a single tweet following a foreign affairs committee meeting in June 2021.Omar asked the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, about Washington’s opposition to international criminal court (ICC) investigations in Israel and the occupied Palestine territories, and Afghanistan shortly before it fell to the Taliban.The ICC reached a preliminary conclusion that both Israel and Palestinian armed groups have both committed war crimes that include the unjustified killing of civilians and Israel’s illegal construction of sprawling settlements in the occupied territories. In Afghanistan, the ICC is investigating actions by the Taliban, the former Afghan government’s forces, the US military and the CIA.Omar made it clear in her questions to Blinken that she agreed with the expansive nature of the court’s investigation and that she was not singling out one side in either conflict.“I would emphasise that in Israel and Palestine this includes crimes committed by the Israeli security forces and Hamas. In Afghanistan it includes crimes committed by the Afghan national government and the Taliban,” she told him.“So in both of these cases, if domestic courts can’t or won’t pursue justice – and we oppose the ICC – where do we think the victims of these supposed crimes can go for justice? And what justice mechanisms do you support for them?”The question was typical of the global perspective Omar brought to the foreign affairs committee, shaped by her early life amidst armed conflict in Somalia and in a United Nations refugee camp in Kenya. At its core was Omar’s persistent scrutiny of whether the US lives up to its self-assessment as a force for good in the world when, in this case, it shields itself and its friends from accountability.Blinken made no objection to the framing of the question, and lamented the deaths of Israelis and Palestinians. He said there was no need for ICC investigations because existing national courts in Israel and the US were sufficient to ensure accountability, a claim disputed by human rights organisations that have documented unprosecuted war crimes and crimes against humanity by both countries.The storm broke when Omar tweeted Blinken’s testimony with the comment: “We must have the same level of accountability and justice for all victims of crimes against humanity. We have seen unthinkable atrocities committed by the US, Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban. I asked [Blinken] where people are supposed to go for justice.”Republicans came out of the gate claiming that single tweet was evidence of everything that was wrong with Omar.They said it exposed her hostility to Israel and America, and her antisemitism. They accused her of drawing “moral equivalence” between democratic governments and suicide bombers. Few cared that while Omar’s framing of her tweet may have been impolitic, it was not the congresswoman who linked Israel and Hamas, or the Taliban and the US military, but the ICC in its investigations.Republican Senator Tom Cotton resorted to what is widely regarded as a classic racist taunt to Omar to go back to where she came from: “[She] was a refugee from Somalia and America welcomed her. If she really believes America is a hateful country on par with the Taliban and Hamas, she’s welcome to leave.”It did not take long for Democrats to pile in as well. Fellow party members in Congress issued a statement claiming that Omar’s “false equivalencies give cover to terrorist groups”.The Democrats urged Omar “to clarify her words”. The congresswoman responded by condemning the “constant harassment and silencing” from fellow Democrats.A few Democrats did come to her defence, including Representative Cori Bush.“I’m not surprised when Republicans attack Black women for standing up for human rights. But when it’s Democrats, it’s especially hurtful,” she said.Omar was forced into a retreat after the then Democratic House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, joined the fray to condemn “false equivalencies”, saying they foment prejudice and undermine progress toward peace.Omar issued a statement “clarifying” that she was not making moral comparisons and was “in no way equating terrorist organisations with democratic countries”.But by then, the debate and news coverage had shifted from scrutiny of why the US was protecting Israel and itself, and by extension Hamas and the Taliban, from war crimes investigations to a debate about Omar’s motives.And the Republicans had another arrow in their quiver when the time came to move against her.TopicsDemocratsIsraelIlhan OmarMiddle East and north AfricaPalestinian territoriesUS foreign policySomalianewsReuse this content More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Washington Post condemns Pompeo for ‘vile’ Khashoggi ‘falsehoods’

      by

      Washington Post condemns Pompeo for ‘vile’ Khashoggi ‘falsehoods’Fred Ryan says former secretary of state ‘outrageously misrepresents’ Post journalist murdered by Saudi Arabian regime The publisher of the Washington Post, Fred Ryan, has blasted the former secretary of state Mike Pompeo for “outrageously misrepresenting” and “spreading vile falsehoods” about Jamal Khashoggi, the Post columnist murdered by the Saudi Arabian regime in 2018.Nikki Haley plotted with Kushner and Ivanka to be Trump vice-president, Pompeo book saysRead more“It is shameful that Pompeo would spread vile falsehoods to dishonor a courageous man’s life and service and his commitment to principles Americans hold dear as a ploy to sell books,” Ryan said.Pompeo’s memoir of his time in Donald Trump’s presidential administration, Never Give an Inch, was published on Tuesday.One of a slew of books from likely contenders for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination – if in this case one who barely registers in polling – the book recounts Pompeo’s time as CIA director and secretary of state under Trump.The Guardian obtained and reported a copy last week. In its own review, published on Tuesday, the Post called Pompeo’s book “vicious … a master class in the performative anger poisoning American politics”.The reviewer, the Pulitzer prize-winning reporter Tim Weiner, added: “Hatred animates this book. It’s got more venom than a quiver of cobras.”The murder of Khashoggi caused outrage around the world and stoked criticism of the Trump White House over its reluctance to criticise the Saudi regime, particularly the crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, who grew close to Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser.US intelligence believes the prince approved the killing of Khashoggi, whose remains have not been found.On the page, Pompeo deplores Khashoggi’s murder. But he also writes that Khashoggi was not a journalist but “an activist who had supported the losing team” and criticises what he calls “faux outrage” over a killing that “made the media madder than a vegan in a slaughterhouse”.On Monday, Khashoggi’s widow, Hanan Elatr Khashoggi, told NBC News: “Whatever [Pompeo] mentions about my husband, he doesn’t know my husband. He should be silent and shut up the lies about my husband. It is such bad information and the wrong information … This is not acceptable.”Elatr Khashoggi also said she wanted “to silence all of these people who publish books, disparage my husband and collect money from it”.On Tuesday, Ryan said it was “shocking and disappointing to see Mike Pompeo’s book so outrageously misrepresent the life and work of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.“As the CIA – which Pompeo once directed – concluded, Jamal was brutally murdered on the orders of Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman. His only offense was exposing corruption and oppression among those in power – work that good journalists around the world do every day.”Pompeo responded on Twitter, writing: “Americans are safer because we didn’t label Saudi Arabia a pariah state. I never let the media bully me. Just because someone is a part-time stringer for the Washington Post doesn’t make their life more important than our military serving in dangerous places protecting us all. I never forgot that.”Ryan said Khashoggi, who wrote for the Post while resident in the US, “dedicated himself to the values of free speech and a free press and held himself to the highest professional standards. For this devotion, he paid the ultimate price.”TopicsBooksMike PompeoJamal KhashoggiPolitics booksUS politicsTrump administrationUS foreign policynewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Harvard Kennedy School condemned for denying fellowship to Israel critic

      by

      Harvard Kennedy School condemned for denying fellowship to Israel criticACLU and Pen America back former Human Rights Watch chief Kenneth Roth and say decision ‘raises serious questions’ Leading civil rights organisations have condemned Harvard Kennedy School’s denial of a position to the former head of Human Rights Watch over the organisation’s criticism of Israel.Harvard blocks role for former Human Rights Watch head over Israel criticismRead moreThe American Civil Liberties Union called the refusal of a fellowship to Kenneth Roth “profoundly troubling”. PEN America, which advocates for freedom of expression, said the move “raises serous questions” about one of the US’s leading schools of government. Roth also received backing from other human rights activists.But the Kennedy School found support from organisations that have been highly critical of Roth and HRW, particularly over the group’s report two years ago that accused Israel of practising a form of race-based apartheid in the Palestinian occupied territories.The Harvard Kennedy School’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy offered Roth a position as a senior fellow shortly after he retired as director of HRW in April after 29 years. But the school’s dean, Douglas Elmendorf, allegedly vetoed the move.A professor of human rights policy at the Kennedy School, Kathryn Sikkink, told the Nation that Elmendorf said to her that Roth would not be permitted to take up the position because HRW has an “anti-Israel bias” and its former director had written tweets critical of Israel.Roth told the Guardian that Harvard’s move was a reflection of “how utterly afraid the Kennedy School has become of any criticism of Israel” under pressure from donors and influential supporters within the school of Israel’s rightwing government.The director of the ACLU, Anthony Romero, urged the Kennedy School “to reverse its decision”.“If Harvard’s decision was based on HRW’s advocacy under Ken’s leadership, this is profoundly troubling – from both a human rights and an academic freedom standpoint, he said. “Scholars and fellows have to be judged on their merits, not whether they please powerful political interests.”PEN America also backed Roth.“It is the role of a human rights defender to call out governments harshly, to take positions that are unpopular in certain quarters and to antagonize those who hold power and authority,” the group said. “There is no suggestion that Roth’s criticisms of Israel are in any way based on racial or religious animus.“Withholding Roth’s participation in a human rights program due to his own staunch critiques of human rights abuses by governments worldwide raises serious questions about the credibility of the Harvard program itself.”The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which promotes free speech on college campuses, wrote to Elmendorf saying that the Kennedy School “undermines its laudable commitment to intellectual diversity and free inquiry when it rescinds a fellowship offer based on the candidate’s viewpoint or speech”.But Harvard found support from organisations that have been highly critical of Roth and HRW over the group’s reports on Israel.NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based organisation that campaigns against humanitarian groups critical of Israeli government policies, accused HRW under Ross’s leadership of seeking to “delegitimize Israel”.“The dean at Harvard was not fooled by the moral facade granted to Roth and HRW. He recognized Roth’s central contributions to legitimizing antisemitism,” NGO Monitor’s president, Gerald Steinberg, said.UN Watch, a pro-Israel lobby group, described the Kennedy School’s move as “good news”.“Ken Roth had a pathological obsession with singling out Israel for differential and discriminatory treatment, disproportionately to shocking degrees, with the apparent aim to portray the Jewish state in a manner that would evoke repulsion and disgust,” it said.Roth has long been the target of a personalised campaign of abuse, including charges of antisemitism, even though his father was a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany. He said HRW faced similar attacks on its motives when it released its report titled A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution, even though leading Israeli politicians have also “warned that the occupation has become a form apartheid”.“The irony is that when we issued the report, the Israeli government was at a loss to find anything wrong with it. They fell back on the usual arguments of, ‘you must be antisemitic’. I take that as a … victory because if all they can do is name call, they have nothing substantive to say,” he said.The Kennedy School did not respond to requests for comment.TopicsUS newsUS politicsHarvard UniversityHigher educationUS universitiesIsraelPalestinian territoriesnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      We Are Not One review: assured history of Israel’s place in US politics

      by

      We Are Not One review: assured history of Israel’s place in US politicsTo Eric Alterman, ‘Israel is a red state’ while ‘US Jewry is blue’. Like so much else, Donald Trump has disrupted that dynamic The civil war divided America’s Christians along axes of geography and theology. These days, Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, soon to be prime minister again, have wrought a similar sorting. In the words of Eric Alterman, “Israel is a red state. US Jewry is blue.”DeSantis and Pence lead Republican wave – of presidential campaign booksRead moreAlterman is a distinguished professor of English and journalism at the City University of New York. We Are Not One represents four decades of effort, patience and research. Sixty pages of endnotes undergird his arguments, some dating to his student days.Alterman posits that closeness between the US and Israel has oscillated over time and that younger American Jews, particularly those outside Orthodox Judaism, are now distancing themselves from the Zionist experiment. He relies, in part, on polling by Pew Research.Practically speaking, the divide may be more nuanced, with the latest shifts also reflecting a response to a rise in crime – and messaging about it. In the midterms, the Republican Lee Zeldin won 46% of Jewish voters in New York as he came close to beating the governor, Kathy Hochul. Donald Trump never surpassed 30% nationally. In 2020, he took 37% of New York’s Jewish vote.In We Are Not One, Alterman observes how unsafe streets and racial tensions helped spawn neoconservatism. It is “impossible” to separate the movement’s “origins from the revulsions caused by constant news reports of inner-city riots … and broader societal dislocations”. Between 1968 and 1972, Richard Nixon’s share of the Jewish vote doubled from 17% to 35%.One Saturday night in 1968, a crowd thronged the streets of Borough Park in Brooklyn, a predominately Jewish enclave, to cheer the vice-president, Hubert Humphrey, the Democratic presidential nominee. Over the next four years, “law and order” found purchase. To top it off, George McGovern, the Democratic nominee, made Israel supporters nervous.The South Dakota senator’s message, “Come home America”, left them wondering if the US would be in Israel’s corner if war came again. Vietnam was a proxy for foreign policy anxieties. As a coda, Alterman recollects how Nixon nonetheless yearned to turn Jews into political foils and whipping boys. That 2016 Trump ad with a six-pointed star over a field of dollar bills? It had deep roots.Why pro-Israel lobby group Aipac is backing election deniers and extremist RepublicansRead moreAlterman also recounts how Daniel Moynihan, a Democrat, used his position as Gerald Ford’s UN ambassador to reach the Senate in 1976. With support from neoconservatives, hawkish Jews and the New York Times, he beat Bella Abzug, a leftwing lion, in the primary. Then he beat James Buckley, the Republican incumbent.Moynihan lauded Israel’s raid at Entebbe. In Alterman’s description, he appealed to “American Jews’ feelings of vulnerability and their pride and relief at Israel’s military prowess in kicking the asses” of Palestinian and German terrorists and “humiliating” Idi Amin, Uganda’s “evil dictator”.Time passes. Things remain the same. In New York, transit crime is up more than 30%. Violence against Jews is a staple, according to the NYPD.Meanwhile, on college campuses, in Alterman’s words, Israel is a “mini-America”, a useful target for faculty and students to vent against “rapaciousness on the part of the US and other western nations vis-a-vis the downtrodden of the world”.The author quotes Benzion Netanyahu, the Israeli leader’s late father: “Jewish history is in large measure a history of holocausts.” Modern insecurities spring from ancient calamities.Kanye West spews bile. Trump entertains him with Nick Fuentes, a white supremacist and Holocaust denier. Republicans quietly squirm. Trump’s Jewish supporters grapple with cognitive dissonance and emotional vertigo. Take Mort Klein, of the hard-right Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), who makes several appearances in We Are Not One.Testifying before Congress, Klein accused the press of taking Trump’s comments on Charlottesville, where neo-Nazis marched in 2017, “completely out of context”. In 2018, after 11 worshippers were murdered at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Klein rode to the rescue again. At the ZOA dinner, he said it was “political blasphemy” to blame Trump.Last month, ZOA gave Trump its highest honor. According to Klein, the ex-president was the “best friend Israel ever had in the White House”. Then Trump met West, now known as Ye, and Fuentes, twisting Klein into a human pretzel.“Trump is not an antisemite,” he announced. “He loves Israel. He loves Jews. But he mainstreams, he legitimizes Jew hatred and Jew haters. And this scares me.”Trump reportedly kept Hitler’s speeches by his bed. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.At a recent confab of Agudath Israel of America, an ultra-Orthodox group, Rabbi Dovid Zwiebel, its executive vice-president, condemned Trump: “Yesterday’s friend can be tomorrow’s greatest enemy.” Two years earlier, though, its members clearly backed Trump over Joe Biden. Borough Park was as deep red as Lafayette, Louisiana.It all carries a whiff of deja vu. Alterman recounts how neoconservatives admonished America’s Jews against complaining of Israel’s alliance with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson: “The Christian Zionists’ devotion to ‘Greater Israel’ earned them a pass from the neocons for their occasional outbursts of antisemitism.”Trump had dinner with two avowed antisemites. Let’s call this what it is | Francine ProseRead moreTrump’s Mar-a-Lago dinner created a similar bind. David Friedman, his bankruptcy lawyer and ambassador to Israel, tweeted: “To my friend Donald Trump, you are better than this … I urge you to throw those bums out, disavow them and relegate them to the dustbin of history where they belong.”Trump was not amused. On Friday, he lashed out at “Jewish Leaders”. Friedman must learn patience. ZOA may wish to rescind its award.Jason Greenblatt, a Trump Organization lawyer who moved to the White House, echoed Friedman for CNN. Days later, he spoke at a synagogue in Scarsdale, north of New York City. Greenblatt repeated the need for Trump to correct the record and urged those in attendance to politely speak up.In the next breath, he lauded his one-time boss’s achievements and character. It sure is tough to quit Trump.
      We Are Not One: A History of America’s Fight Over Israel is published in the US by Hachette Book Group
      TopicsBooksUS politicsDemocratsRepublicansDonald TrumpIsraelUS foreign policyreviewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Hakeem Jeffries’ likely elevation set to please US pro-Israel groups

      by

      Hakeem Jeffries’ likely elevation set to please US pro-Israel groupsDemocrat set to succeed Nancy Pelosi maintains ties to Aipac and others but could be challenged by critics in his own caucus Hakeem Jeffries might be about to make history but some critics fear that on one issue, at least, he will be on the wrong side of it.The progressive New York congressman widely expected to lead the Democrats in the US House of Representatives will be the first person of color to head either party in the chamber. Jeffries’ election as House minority leader in the new Congress in January would also see the baton pass to a new generation of Democratic leaders as the speaker, Nancy Pelosi, 82, steps aside.US corporations gave more than $8m to election deniers’ midterm campaignsRead moreThe change will be a profound one but, for some, it will only go so far.The prospect of Jeffries heading the Democrats in the House has been greeted with delight by hardline pro-Israel groups increasingly alarmed at a growing dissent in Congress over Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, including large-scale forced removals of Arabs from their homes, which is only likely to intensify as the Israeli far-right gains power.The former Democratic congressman Robert Wexler told Jewish Insider that “the pro-Israel camp needs someone just like Hakeem to lead us into the future”.“In fact, I would say, if the pro-Israel community wanted to create a Democratic leader for the future, we would create Hakeem Jeffries,” he said.“Hakeem is not just interested in these issues. He’s devoted to them. He’s respectful of the American Jewish community. He identifies with it. And he’s just a really nice guy on top of it.”Others who defend Israeli policies have praised Jeffries in similarly lavish terms. The congressman has been just as effusive in speaking about Israel.In 2020, Jeffries told a conference of the US’s largest and most powerful pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), that “back home in New York City we consider Jerusalem to be the sixth borough”.“The relationship is anchored in values,” he told the meeting.But as Jeffries takes over the Democratic House leadership he is likely to find the claim of common values increasingly tested by far-right ministers in the new Israeli government and challenged by critics of its policies in his own caucus.Among those expected to be have a powerful influence over the next Israeli government is the leader of the Jewish Power party, Itamar Ben-Gvir, who was active in the anti-Arab Kach party until it was banned as a terrorist organisation after one of its followers, Baruch Goldstein, murdered 29 Palestinians in Hebron in 1994. Ben-Gvir used to hang a portrait of Goldstein in his living room.Ben-Gvir, like Benjamin Netanyahu, who is expected to become prime minister again, is opposed to the creation of an independent Palestinian state. Jeffries supports “a self-governed and demilitarized Palestinian state”.With Ben-Gvir expected to be appointed public security minister in Netanyahu’s new government, while advocating the expulsion of Arabs deemed to be disloyal to the Jewish state, the pressure within the Democratic caucus to ensure that Israel lives up to the democratic values Jeffries praises is only likely to grow.Jeffries opposed a bill introduced last year by another party member, Betty McCollum, to ensure that the nearly $4bn in annual American military aid to Israel is not used to illegally annex Palestinian land, to demolish Arab homes and forcibly remove Palestinians, or to detain children in Israel’s labyrinthian military judicial system.Earlier this year, 15 Democratic members of Congress urged the Biden administration to intervene over the largest forcible removal of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank by the Israeli military in decades, in what has been called a war crime by Human Rights Watch.Jeffries told Aipac that aid should continue with “no conditions”. He signed a letter drawn up by Democratic Congressman Ted Deutch opposing “reducing funding or adding conditions on security assistance”. The letter was signed by more than 300 members of Congress, boosted by an Aipac lobbying campaign.Pressure has also grown in Congress for a proper accounting by Israel over the killing of the Palestinian American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh in May.Dylan Williams, the senior vice-president of policy and strategy at the Washington-based campaign group J Street, which describes itself as “pro-Israel and pro-peace”, has said the demands for justice for Abu Akleh reflect broader concerns within Congress as Israeli killings of Palestinians have escalated while Jewish settlers in the West Bank appear to have been given free rein at times to attack Palestinians and take over their land.“Members of Congress seem increasingly frustrated that these types of disturbing actions from Israeli forces continue to take place, without facing meaningful pushback or accountability from our government,” he said.“There’s growing momentum to make clear that Israel must be held to the same important standards as all close US allies, and that our steadfast support for Israel’s security does not and should not preclude our government from also standing up in defense of human rights and international law in the occupied Palestinian territory.”Jeffries maintains close ties to Aipac and other hardline pro-Israel lobby groups. One of them, Pro-Israel America, was his largest single donor over the past year, giving his campaign more than $213,000. Pro-Israel groups gave him $460,000 in total, second only to donations from the financial industry.Critics have said that Jeffries’ statements on Israel often read like lobby talking points. Earlier this year, the congressman rejected reports by Israeli and international human rights groups that Israel practices a form of apartheid against the Palestinians. He said the claim is “designed to isolate Israel in one of the toughest neighborhoods in the world”.During a visit to Israel and the occupied territories earlier this year, Jeffries confronted the Palestinian prime minister Mohammad Shtayyeh for raising the apartheid parallel, in effect telling him how the Palestinians are permitted to describe their own oppression.However, Jeffries broke with the pro-Israel lobby and many of his Jewish constituents in supporting President Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. Aipac lobbied heavily against it after Israel opposed the agreement, which was intended to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons.TopicsUS politicsDemocratsIsraelMiddle East and north AfricaPalestinian territoriesnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden administration ‘dragged feet’ on Mohammed bin Salman immunity ruling

      by

      Biden administration ‘dragged feet’ on Mohammed bin Salman immunity rulingLegal experts raise questions about run-up to granting immunity in civil case involving murder of journalist When the Biden administration filed a legal brief last week calling for the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, to be granted sovereign immunity in a civil case involving the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi, it said it was strictly a legal determination that did not reflect its views on the “heinous” killing.“In every case, we simply follow the law. And that’s what we did,” Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, later said.But a close examination of the Biden administration’s actions, including interviews with legal experts and people who closely followed the matter, suggest the controversial decision was anything but straightforward.Beginning last summer, the administration’s decision to delay action and seek months of legal extensions before submitting its views on the matter before a US judge offered Saudi Arabia an unprecedented opportunity to protect Prince Mohammed through a legal manoeuvre that put him above the law and out of the reach of the US legal system. Once this had happened, the Biden administration in effect said its hands were tied.“If you look at the sequence of events, it is hard not to see this was a battle between Biden and Mohammed bin Salman playing out,” said one close observer, who asked not to be named so they could speak candidly. “I would hate to imagine that there was bartering over our judicial system and that integrity was up for grabs.”The US government was first invited to get involved in the civil case against Prince Mohammed on 1 July by the US district court judge John Bates. At the centre of the request was a lawsuit filed in 2020 against the crown prince and his associates by Hatice Cengiz, Khashoggi’s fiancee, which accused Prince Mohammed and his associates of conspiring with premeditation to kidnap, torture and murder Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in 2018.Bates’s request was straightforward. He gave the administration 30 days – until 1 August – to submit a “statement of interest” and weigh in on whether the heir to the Saudi throne ought to be granted sovereign immunity in the case, or tell the court that it did not wish to make a statement. He also wanted the administration to weigh in on how the court might reconcile protections that are given to foreign leaders and those who are using a US law that allows victims of torture or extrajudicial killings to hold perpetrators accountable.At that time, Prince Mohammed was – clearly – not a sovereign. In Saudi Arabia, that distinction belonged at the time solely to his father, King Salman.Harold Koh, a former legal adviser to the state department during the Obama administration who is now a professor of international law at Yale Law School, said the US had competing interests at the time. On the one hand, the US asserts reciprocal principles of immunity so that its own head of state will be offered protection from legal courts. But that had to be weighed against Biden’s statements about human rights being at the centre of his administration’s foreign policy and “autocrats understanding that the president means what he says”.“All things considered, silence would have been the better way to balance those competing national interests,” Koh said, adding that there would have been “ample precedent” for the state department to stay silent.On 15 July, Joe Biden met Prince Mohammed in Jeddah, a meeting that started with a fist bump and was meant to “reset” his relationship with a leader he once called a pariah. It would later emerge that the meeting was also the start of a campaign by the administration to try to persuade the Saudis not to cut oil production before the US midterm elections.Back in Washington, just a few days later on 18 July, the US asked Judge Bates for an extension, saying it needed time to consult multiple entities within the administration with respect to “complex issues of international and domestic law”. The court agreed, giving the US until 3 October to respond.Weeks later, on 23 September, Brett McGurk, a Middle East policy coordinator for the US National Security Council (NSC), and Amos Hochstein, a US senior adviser for energy security, visited Jeddah again, ostensibly to discuss energy policies.Days later, on 27 September, the Saudi royal court announced that Prince Mohammed had been named prime minister, a role that had been and usually is held by the Saudi king. Observers noted that the apparent promotion did not confer any major new duties or powers to Mohammed bin Salman. Human rights defenders saw it as a ploy to influence the US recommendation on sovereign immunity, which was due about a week later.The US government, citing “changed circumstances”, requested a second extension to prepare its response and was granted one, until 17 November. A few days after it missed its 3 October deadline, Opec+ announced it was cutting oil production by 2m barrels a day, in what was seen by Democrats as an attempt by the kingdom to interfere with the US election and side with Russia over US interests.Biden promised that Saudi Arabia would face “consequences” for the decision, but has not articulated any specific actions he planned to take against the kingdom. On 17 November, just hours before a midnight deadline, the administration filed a notice that it believed Prince Mohammed, as prime minister, deserved to be treated as a sovereign as a standard matter of international law.An NSC spokesperson told the Guardian that the US president was briefed on the immunity decision, which was based on “well-established principles of common law”.When the Guardian asked the spokesperson if any US official ever suggested to Saudi Arabia that Prince Mohammed could be appointed prime minister before the matter was public, the spokesperson said: “This was an independent decision made by Saudi Arabia.”People familiar with the matter say legal questions about Prince Mohammed’s status were hotly debated inside the state department, where views about the best course of action differed.In debates within the administration, senior officials such as McGurk who have sought to promote the rehabilitation of the Saudi-US relationship have edged out policy objectives focused on human rights.“This administration made the decision it did because Mohammed bin Salman is prime minister. But they dragged their feet so much … This was clearly a policy decision in that they waited and stalled,” said one person who has advocated for human rights to have more prominence in decisions around policy.Leaders like Prince Mohammed were “legitimately worried” when Biden first came into office and vowed to make the Saudi heir accountable for human rights violations.“And when they got into office, the execution was not there,” the person said. Even when Biden made the decision to release a declassified intelligence report that found Prince Mohammed had likely ordered the murder, there were no sanctions against him.The person added: “That set the stage and indicated the rhetoric was not matched by substance.”TopicsMohammed bin SalmanSaudi ArabiaBiden administrationUS foreign policyUS politicsMiddle East and north AfricanewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Qatar’s World Cup of woe: inside the 18 November Guardian Weekly

      by

      Qatar’s World Cup of woe: inside the 18 November Guardian WeeklyGeopolitical football. Plus: a world beyond 8 billion people
      Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address Ordinarily a football World Cup would be a moment for celebration, a time to savour sport’s power to unite nations and a glorious distraction from the problems of the day. Not this time: the 2022 tournament has been mired in controversy since it was awarded to Qatar 12 years ago. The small but ultra-wealthy Middle Eastern state thought that hosting the world’s most-watched sporting event would showcase it as a major player on the global stage. But instead Qatar has come in for severe criticism on a number of fronts, in particular for its treatment of migrant workers, anti LGBTQ+ laws, and restrictions on freedom of speech.“A deflated football in the desert seemed like a perfect metaphor to capture the controversy,” says illustrator Barry Downard of his cover artwork for this week’s Guardian Weekly magazine.In a special report, Patrick Wintour asks whether Qatar has lost at geopolitical football before the action has even begun. The cartoonist David Squires brilliantly brings to life the plight of a migrant worker turned whistleblower and, in the final reckoning, sports writer Jonathan Liew tries to salvage some actual football from the diplomatic wreckage.On that theme, further back in the features section there’s a reminder of what the game should be about as we meet some of the young people who will be cheering on their teams from afar.Another dubious global milestone was reached this week as the world’s population passed 8 billion, according to UN estimates. In a the first of a series of dispatches from the frontline of population growth, Hannah Ellis-Petersen reports from India, which next year will overtake China as the planet’s most populous nation, on what the shift means for the world.The US midterm elections saw the Democrats fare better than expected, retaining control of the Senate despite looking likely to lose control of the House by a small margin to the Republicans. The more consequential outcome may be for Donald Trump: Chris McGreal and David Smith ask if the former president’s grip on the GOP is weakening, and if his rival Ron DeSantis’s time may be coming.If your settlement is at existential risk from climate change, is the answer to move it? Guardian Australia’s Pacific editor Kate Lyons visits Fiji’s vulnerable Pacific islands, where communities have started to do just that – discovering that it is not nearly as simple as it sounds.Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home addressTopicsQatarInside Guardian WeeklyWorld CupWorld Cup 2022Middle East and north AfricaPopulationIndiaChinaReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Bibi review: Netanyahu memoir is hard-eyed – if not where Trump is concerned

      by

      Bibi review: Netanyahu memoir is hard-eyed – if not where Trump is concernedThe former Israeli PM is under a legal cloud but fighting for office again. His book is well-written and self-serving Benjamin Netanyahu is Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, in office three times over 15 years, as he reminds us in his memoir. These days, he leads the parliamentary opposition and is on trial for corruption and bribery. His countrymen return to the polls on 1 November, their fifth election since 2019.Netanyahu used golf metaphor to turn Trump against Palestinians, book saysRead moreIsrael’s politics are fractious and tribal. The far right grows as the left is decimated by the failed dream of the Oslo peace accords. Yet outside politics, things there are less fevered and acrid. Start-Up Nation has supplanted the kibbutz. Technology makes the desert bloom.In his memoir, Netanyahu doubles down on his embrace of the Covid vaccine and regrets easing up too early on pandemic closures, in hindsight a “cardinal mistake”. Here, the divide between Netanyahu and the other members of the populist right could not be starker. For him, modernity matters.Based on the latest polls, he has a serious shot at re-election but is not quite there. A win could mean immunity from prosecution. That decision will rest with his coalition partners – if he wins.Washington is watching, particularly if Jewish supremacists should enter the government. One seeks appointment as defense minister.“If we get a lot of mandates, we will have the legitimacy to demand significant portfolios such as the defense and the treasury,” Bezalel Smotrich, head of the far-right Religious Zionism party, declares.Bob Menendez is alarmed. He is a Democrat, chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee and a major supporter of Israel. He led the fight against the Iran nuclear deal. As so often in US politics, the red-blue divide is on display and Israel is there in the middle.Netanyahu wrote his memoir longhand. It is not the standard campaign autobiography. It has heft, and not just because it runs to 650 pages. Primed for debate, he conveys his point of view with plenty of notes. He paints in primary colors, not pastels. The canvas is filled with adulation, anger, frustration and dish. Bibi is substantive and barbed. It is interesting. Netanyahu has scores to settle and punches to land. At times, he equates his fate with Israel’s.Netanyahu was born in Israel but attended high school in Philadelphia and graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Throughout his book, Netanyahu calls his dad, Benzion Netanyahu, “Father”. Netanyahu the elder taught at Cornell. His son respects the US but is not enamored by its culture.The civil rights movement did not leave a lasting impression. Facing electoral defeat in 2015, against the backdrop of the 50th anniversary of the Selma march, Netanyahu warned that Israel’s Arabs, who are citizens, were voting “in droves”. To many, including Barack Obama, that 11th-hour campaign siren was reminiscent of the wail of Jim Crow. In his book, Netanyahu tries to explain away the episode. He comes up woefully short.Netanyahu is a former Israeli commando but also an ambassador to the UN. He catalogs differences with Obama, George HW Bush, Bill Clinton and, to a point, Donald Trump. James Baker, secretary of state to the first President Bush, barred Netanyahu from the state department. In 1996, Clinton reportedly exclaimed: “Who the fuck does he think he is? … Who’s the fucking superpower here?”Bibi recounts the episode but says his relationship with the Clintons was “civil”. He challenges Obama’s stances toward Iran and the Palestinians but stays mum about Trump aiming a tart “fuck him” his way, for congratulating President Biden.Netanyahu castigates Clinton and Obama for purported messianism and naivety but says nothing of his own bad calls. For instance, in September 2002, he testified before Congress in support of the Iraq war.“I think the choice of Iraq is a good choice, it’s the right choice,” he said, adding: “It’s not a question of whether Iraq’s regime should be taken out but when should it be taken out. It’s not a question of whether you’d like to see a regime change in Iran but how to achieve it.”The American war dead might disagree.Netanyahu laments that Obama vetoed his request that the US strike nuclear installations in Iran. He does not attempt to reconcile his demand for armed confrontation with hostility to “endless wars” on the Trumpist right.In a book published amid Russia’s war on Ukraine, Netanyahu repeatedly lauds Vladimir Putin for his intellect and toughness.“I took the measure of the man,” he claims. Once upon a time, George W Bush claimed to have looked into Putin’s soul. We know how that ended. In contrast, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney and Joe Biden got the Russian leader right from the off.Netanyahu says he understands Putin’s resentments: “The opening up of Russia …revealed that Russia had fallen hopelessly behind the west.”In a recently released transcript of an off-the-record conversation between Obama and a group of reporters, the then president charged that like the world’s strongmen and their future White House fanboy, Netanyahu subscribed to “Putinism” himself.Trump a narcissist and a ‘dick’, ex-ambassador Sondland says in new bookRead more“What I worry about most is, there is a war right now of ideas, more than any hot war, and it is between Putinism – which, by the way, is subscribed to, at some level, by Erdogan or Netanyahu or Duterte and Trump – and a vision of a liberal market-based democracy.”Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, has wholeheartedly embraced Putin. Reportedly, the Biden White House is “very disappointed”.Meanwhile, Trump lashes out at American Jews for not showing him the love evangelicals do: “US Jews need to get their act together and appreciate what they have in Israel – Before it is too late!”Don’t expect Netanyahu or Trump’s Jewish supporters to say much – if anything at all.
      Bibi: My Story is published in the US by Simon & Schuster
      TopicsBooksBenjamin NetanyahuIsraelMiddle East and north AfricaUS politicsUS foreign policyDonald TrumpreviewsReuse this content More