Middle East and North Africa

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US senators refuse to let killing of Shireen Abu Akleh drop with Israel

      by

      US senators refuse to let killing of Shireen Abu Akleh drop with Israel The state department seems keen to avoid questions about the Palestinian American journalist’s shooting by an Israeli soldierIsrael has declared the case closed. The US state department has done its best to duck difficult questions. But leading members of the US Congress are refusing to drop demands for a proper accounting of the death of the Palestinian American journalist, Shireen Abu Akleh, four months ago.The longest-serving member of the US Senate, Patrick Leahy, recently upped the ante by warning that Israel’s failure to fully explain the Al-Jazeera reporter’s killing could jeopardize America’s huge military aid to the Jewish state under a law he sponsored 25 years ago cutting weapons supplies to countries that abuse human rights.Shireen Abu Akleh’s family submits complaint to ICCRead moreNearly half of the Democratic members of the Senate have signed a letter calling into question Israel’s claim that Abu Akleh was accidentally shot by a soldier. The letter suggests she may have been targeted because she was a journalist.The Biden administration is also facing a flurry of legislative amendments and letters from members of Congress demanding that the state department reveal what it knows about Abu Akleh’s death and that the FBI launch an independent investigation.Few think there is much prospect of the US actually cutting its $3.8bn a year in military aid to Israel in the near future, but it is politically significant that so many senior Democrats have signed on to publicly challenge Israel, which has frequently been able to count on solid bipartisan support in America.Although criticism has focused on Abu Akleh’s death, the demands for accountability come 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.Dylan Williams, senior vice-president of policy and strategy at the Washington-based campaign group J Street, which describes itself as “pro-Israel and pro-peace”, said the demands for justice for Abu Akleh reflect broader concerns.“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.”The powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), which funds political campaigns against politicians critical of Israel, has lobbied against a US investigation of Abu Akleh’s death.But Sarah Leah Whitson, director of Democracy for the Arab World Now – an advocacy group founded by the murdered Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi to pressure the US government to end support for authoritarian regimes in the Middle East – said that changing American public sentiment about Israel and the Palestinians has made it easier for some politicians to speak out.“There is an increasing view among the American public that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid, that Palestinians are unjustly victimised by Israel. This has given legislators more space, particularly secure legislators like Patrick Leahy, to say what they actually think,” she said.“In addition, they have more space on this particular case because Shireen Abu Akleh was a US citizen.”Israel initially claimed that Abu Akleh was shot by a Palestinian during a military raid on the occupied West Bank city of Jenin in May. Earlier this month, it finally admitted that it was “highly probable” that an Israel Defence Forces (IDF) soldier killed the journalist but claimed the shooting occurred during a gun battle with Palestinian fighters.That account was widely dismissed because investigations by human rights groups, the press and the United Nations showed that there was no fighting in Abu Akleh’s vicinity.Last week, Leahy told the Senate that the Biden administration had failed to act on calls from members of Congress for the FBI to investigate Abu Akleh’s death as is “customary and appropriate after a tragedy like this involving a prominent American killed overseas under questionable circumstances”.“Unfortunately, there has been no independent, credible investigation,” he said.Leahy challenged the value of Israel’s report on Abu Akleh’s death, noting there was “a history of investigations of shootings by IDF soldiers that rarely result in accountability”.The senator also questioned the state department’s role after the US security coordinator (USSC) in Jerusalem, Lt Gen Mark Schwartz, concluded that there was “no evidence to indicate [Abu Akleh’s] killing was intentional”.Leahy said: “The USSC, echoing the conclusion of the IDF, apparently did not interview any of the IDF soldiers or any other witnesses. To say that fatally shooting an unarmed person, and in this case one with ‘press’ written in bold letters on her clothing, was not intentional, without providing any evidence to support that conclusion, calls into question the state department’s commitment to an independent, credible investigation and to ‘follow the facts’.”Leahy has introduced an amendment, along with other senators, calling for the Biden administration to examine whether Israel has fallen afoul of the 1997 “Leahy Law” barring military assistance to countries whose armies abuse human rights.“Whether [Abu Akleh’s] killing was intentional, reckless or a tragic mistake, there must be accountability. And if it was intentional, and if no one is held accountable, then the Leahy Law must be applied,” Leahy said.Senator Chris Murphy, chair of the Senate foreign relations subcommittee responsible for the region, told MSNBC that he had not previously supported calls to set conditions for US military aid to Israel but that he was concerned about its conduct in the West Bank.“Some of [Israel’s] recent decisions are making conflict between Israel and the Palestinians more likely, not less likely,” he said. “I haven’t gotten there yet, arguing for conditions on that aid, but I think all of us are watching the behavior of the Israeli government very carefully.”Leahy is backed by other senators including Chris Van Hollen, who pushed an amendment passed by the Senate foreign relations committee earlier this month requiring the state department to hand over a full copy of the USSC’s controversial report on Akleh’s death after the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, failed to respond to an earlier request and a series of questions.“I will continue pressing for full accountability and transparency around the death of Shireen. Anything less is unacceptable,” Van Hollen told the committee.Van Hollen was also instrumental in a letter in June signed by nearly half of all Democratic members of the Senate demanding “an independent, thorough, and transparent investigation” into her killing. The letter said disturbing comments by an Israeli official suggested she might have been targeted because she was a journalist.“On the day Shireen Abu Akleh was shot and killed, an Israeli military spokesperson, Ran Kochav, stated that Ms Abu Akleh and her film crew ‘were armed with cameras, if you’ll permit me to say so’,” the letter said.“We know you agree that journalists must be able to perform their jobs without fear of attack.”TopicsPalestinian territoriesUS SenateIsraelMiddle East and north AfricaUS politicsUS foreign policyUS CongressnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US congressman accuses LIV CEO Greg Norman of pushing Saudi ‘propaganda’

      by

      US congressman accuses LIV CEO Greg Norman of pushing Saudi ‘propaganda’ Australian visits Capitol Hill in attempt to promote rebel tourLIV’s role questioned by Democrats and Republicans Greg Norman faced accusations of promoting Saudi “propaganda” following meetings with Washington lawmakers, in which the Australian golfer sought to garner support for the Saudi-backed LIV Series in its bitter dispute with the PGA Tour.Norman, who serves as LIV’s CEO and has been the public face of the breakaway tour, ostensibly came to the US capital this week to criticise what he has called the PGA’s “anti-competitive efforts” to stifle LIV.But – apart from some lawmakers who allegedly sought to take their picture with Norman – the Saudi tour has instead faced a considerable backlash from both Democrats and Republicans, who have defended the PGA and accused LIV of being little more than a sportswashing vehicle for the kingdom.Tim Burchett, a Republican congressman from Tennessee, left a meeting of the Republican Study Committee on Wednesday at which dozens of his party colleagues had met with Norman, expressing dismay that members of Congress were discussing a golf league backed by Saudi funds. He also called Norman’s LIV pitch “propaganda”.‘I hate it. I really do’: McIlroy opens up on golf’s civil war after FedEx Cup winRead more“We need to get out of bed with these people. They are bad actors. We need to keep them at arm’s length,” Burchett told the Guardian. He cited the September 11 attacks on the US, the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and the kingdom’s treatment of gay people and women, which he called “just unacceptable”.While Burchett is a conservative Republican, LIV has also come under fire from the left. Democratic Senator Dick Durbin said earlier this month on Twitter that the LIV tour was using a “golf glove [to] try and cover a blood-stained hand” of the Saudi government. He added that the series was part of a “continued, desperate attempt to clean up [Saudi Arabia’s] image”.Durbin added in a second tweet: “Money shouldn’t be allowed to cover up the murder and dismemberment of a journalist or the imprisonment and harassment of activists like Raif Badawi, Waleed Abu Ak-Khair, and Salma al-Shehab.”The LIV spokesperson Jonathan Grella said: “Greg Norman had a very productive day on Capitol Hill today in front of some 60 members of Congress. His message about the benefits of competition was very well received, even if a couple members of Congress say otherwise.”Even as LIV and the PGA are engaged in litigation in the US involving allegations that the PGA has engaged in anti-competitive practices, some lawmakers have asked whether proponents of the Saudi-backed tour, which is owned by Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, ought to be filing as foreign agents of the kingdom.Department of Justice rules require agents of “foreign principals” who are engaged in “political activities” to disclose their relationship with the foreign principal – in this case, Saudi Arabia – as well as receipts, contracts, and payments in support of those activities. The justice department has notably stepped up its enforcement of such rules – known as the Foreign Agent Registration Act (Fara) – over the last 12 months, and has charged individuals who the department has deemed have acted as foreign agents without disclosing their activities.Chip Roy, a conservative Republican congressman from Texas, in a letter in July called on the DOJ to investigate “potential violations” of the Fara rules.“The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is funneling money through its Public Investment Fund (PIF) to stand up LIV Golf as an exercise in public relations. In other words, a foreign government’s dollars are being used to enhance that government’s brand and positioning here in the United States,” Roy wrote.One legal expert interviewed by the Guardian said that business ventures that are owned by foreign governments do sometimes escape scrutiny, but not when they are owned by a nation’s sovereign wealth fund, and not when there are legitimate questions about whether the business also has public relations goals involving the country’s image abroad.“I think there are a lot of signs that LIV is not a typical business interest. I think there are a lot of reasons for the DoJ to potentially kick tires on this. I wouldn’t be surprised if they did,” said Matt Sanderson, a lawyer at Caplin & Drysdale who specialises in Fara cases. Sanderson said it was also unclear whether LIV intended to make a profit in the long run, raising further questions about its intentions.He added that while he did not think the golfers who have signed up with LIV would personally have to file under Fara, he said any individuals who talk to government officials or engage in PR activities would most likely come under scrutiny if they had not disclosed their activity.Asked whether LIV officials would file under Fara, Grella said: “Our lawyers have informed us that it is not applicable.”TopicsLIV Golf SeriesGolfUS politicsUS political lobbyingSaudi ArabiaMiddle East and north AfricaUS sportsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Iran president rules out meeting with Biden, saying it won’t be beneficial

      by

      Iran president rules out meeting with Biden, saying it won’t be beneficialEbrahim Raisi says he sees no ‘changes in reality’ from Trump administration as hopes to revive nuclear talks dampen Iran’s president, Ebrahim Raisi, has ruled out a meeting with Joe Biden on the margins of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) this week, saying he saw no “changes in reality” from the Trump administration.Raisi underlined the firm position of his government and dampened hopes that a week of summitry at UNGA in New York might yield any progress in negotiations to revive the 2015 nuclear deal. Washington has rejected the latest Iranian bargaining positive as “not constructive”, and most observers believe there will be no breakthroughs at least until after the US congressional elections in November.Asked on the CBS 60 Minutes news programme whenever he would be ready to meet Biden in New York, Raisi replied: “No. I don’t think that such a meeting would happen. I don’t believe having a meeting or a talk with him will be beneficial.”Raisi and Biden are both expected to address UNGA on Wednesday morning.On comparisons between the Biden administration, which has reentered talks on restoring the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Programme of Action (JCPOA) and the Trump White House, which withdrew the US from the deal in 2018, triggering its subsequent unraveling, Raisi was blunt.“The new administration in the US, they claim that they are different from the Trump’s administration. They have said it in their messages to us. But we haven’t witnessed any changes in reality,” he said, in an interview due to be broadcast on Sunday evening.Efforts to restore the JCPOA, by which Iran severely restricted its nuclear programme in return for sanctions relief, have stalled in part because Iran is seeking guarantees that any agreement is not reversed by Biden’s successor, which could be Trump himself.Raisi will arrive in New York in a week the regime’s human rights record is under particular scrutiny. Thirty Iranians have been injured, some seriously, in protests after the death of Mahsa Amini a 22-year-old Kurdish woman three days after she was arrested and reportedly beaten by morality police in Tehran.TopicsIranUS foreign policyMiddle East and north AfricaUS politicsJoe BidenBiden administrationTrump administrationnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      US trio jailed by Iran and accused of espionage sue former captors

      by

      US trio jailed by Iran and accused of espionage sue former captorsSarah Shourd, Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal held for more than a year after being stopped while hiking along Iraqi border in 2009 Three Americans who were jailed by Iran for more than a year and accused of being spies while hiking along the border with Iraq are suing their former captors, hoping to persuade a judge to award them damages for the torture they say they endured.The lawsuit being pursued by Sarah Shourd, her ex-husband and fellow journalist Shane Bauer, and their friend Josh Fattal is being overseen by federal judge Richard Leon in Washington, who in 2019 ordered Iran to pay Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian $180m for imprisoning him for more than a year on false espionage charges.Any damages that Shourd, Bauer, Fattal and their families might receive through their lawsuit would come out of Iranian government assets that the US has seized through sanctions as part of the congressional Justice for Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund.Adding to the intrigue of a saga that began back in 2009 is that Shourd and Bauer had publicly presented themselves as opponents of US sanctions against Iran after they were freed. In 2016, he had called such penalties “totally irresponsible” and she had said they hit “the poorest of Iranians the hardest”.Attorneys for the former couple and Fattal did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment, and neither did the Pakistani embassy in Washington DC, which represents Iran’s interests in the US.The lawsuit recounts how Shourd and Bauer moved to Yemen and then Syria in 2008 while dating because they wanted to continue practicing their Arabic language skills while Shourd engaged in anti-war activism and Bauer supported himself through freelance journalism.Fettel visited them in July of the following year and accompanied them on a hike to a waterfall in Iraqi Kurdistan that was popular with tourists. During that hike, they apparently crossed into Iran without realizing it, and a group of soldiers whom they mistook for Iraqis stopped them to rummage through their hiking gear, cameras, wallets and passports, the lawsuit said.The soldiers forced the hikers into a sport-utility vehicle and drove them around for three days while the Americans feared they would be executed at any moment. They were eventually brought blindfolded into the infamous Evin prison in the capital, Tehran, and held in small, sparse cells.The prisoners were interrogated in a manner that seemed aimed at trying to get them they were US spies, the lawsuits contend. Bauer was asked if he was an employee of the US mercenary firm Blackwater or whether he could use his training as a journalist to write newspaper articles for the guards. Shourd faced questions about whether she’d ever visited the Pentagon – she had not – and if she was on a US government mission.At one point, a guard told Bauer that he knew the American wasn’t a spy. “But … it was up to the US government and the Iranian government to negotiate his release,” the guard added, according to the lawsuit.The plaintiffs’ lawsuit recounts how they often heard the screams of other prisoners who were being tortured, making them fear that they would be next.Bauer, Fattal and Shourd were all held in isolation, where they described barely clinging on to their sanity. Eventually, Bauer and Fattal were put together in one cell, the lawsuit said – but Shourd remained alone, denied treatment for a breast lump, precancerous cervical cells and other health problems.The Iranian regime let Shourd free in September 2010, holding up her release as an act of clemency honoring the end of Ramadan after the intervention of the country’s president at the time, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.Bauer and Fattal were released a year later, apparently as a gesture meant to curry favor for Ahmadinejad as he prepared to fly to New York to attend a United Nations general assembly meeting. At the time, the Obama White House issued a statement saying: “All Americans join their families and friends in celebrating their long-awaited return home.”The three described experiencing symptoms of post-traumatic stress after returning to the US, making it difficult for them to readjust to their lives there. Shourd and Bauer – whose work has appeared in publications such as the New York Times and Mother Jones – married near the ocean in California in 2012. They divorced seven years later.Family members of theirs also reported suffering high levels of distress not knowing whether their efforts to bring Shourd, Bauer and Fattal back to them alive would work.Alongside her mother, Shourd sued the Iranian government in May, arguing that the daughter was held as nothing more than a political hostage while demanding compensation for the ordeal that they subsequently weathered. Fattal, his parents, and his brother followed suit in July. And Bauer, his parents, and his sisters did the same in August.The Iranian regime had not responded to their complaints in court and no trial date had been set as of Friday.Iran’s government never replied to the lawsuit Rezaian filed against it in October 2016. But Leon heard the case in Iran’s absence before awarding him $30m in compensatory damages and $150m in punitive damages meant to discourage the regime from ever again behaving similarly, according to the Wilmer Hale law firm, which represented Rezaian.TopicsUS newsIranUS politicsMiddle East and north AfricanewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      US senator rejects Israeli army report on killing of Palestinian American reporter

      by

      US senator rejects Israeli army report on killing of Palestinian American reporterChris Van Hollen calls for independent US inquiry, saying IDF claim Shireen Abu Aqleh died amid gun battle unsupported by evidence A US senator has dismissed an Israeli army report that claims a soldier accidentally killed the Palestinian American journalist Shireen Abu Aqleh in the midst of a gun battle, saying it is unsupported by the evidence.Chris Van Hollen, a Democratic senator for Maryland, repeated his call for an independent US investigation into Abu Aqleh’s killing in the West Bank in May, saying that the United Nations and reconstructions by major news outlets found that the Al Jazeera television journalist was not in the immediate vicinity of fighting with Palestinian militants and could not have been caught in the crossfire.US condemns Israel’s attack on Shireen Abu Aqleh’s funeralRead more“The crux of the ‘defense’ in this IDF [Israel Defence Forces] report is that a soldier was ‘returning fire’ from militants” when Abu Aqleh was struck, Van Hollen tweeted. “But investigations … found no such firing at the time. This underscores need for independent US inquiry into this American journalist’s death.”On Monday, more than four months after her killing, Israel finally admitted that it was “highly probable” that an Israeli soldier shot Abu Aqleh while she was reporting on a military raid on the occupied West Bank city of Jenin.The report said Abu Aqleh was probably shot by an Israeli soldier who was under fire from a group of Palestinian gunmen. It claimed the soldier was using a telescopic sight and misidentified her as one from his armed opponents. The army said no crime was committed so no one will be prosecuted.However, eyewitness accounts and videos of Abu Aqleh and the area around her at the time of her killing do not show a gun battle. She was also wearing body armour and a helmet clearly labelled as “press”.A United Nations investigation said that Israeli soldiers fired “several single, seemingly well-aimed bullets” at Abu Aqleh and other journalists.Investigations by the New York Times, CNN, the Washington Post and other media questioned the official Israeli version of events. The New York Times said there were “no armed Palestinians near her when she was shot” and that its investigation “contradicted Israeli claims that, if a soldier had mistakenly killed her, it was because he had been shooting at a Palestinian gunman”.The Committee to Protect Journalists called the Israeli report “late and incomplete”.“They provided no name for Shireen Abu [Aqleh’s] killer and no other information than his or her own testimony that the killing was a mistake,” it said.The White House pressured Israel to reveal its findings amid demands for an independent US investigation from some members of Congress and Abu Aqleh’s family which accused Joe Biden’s administration of covering for Israel. Critics noted that the report was released on the Labor Day public holiday in the US when it was likely to receive less attention.The journalist’s niece, Lina Abu Aqleh, said the family had no confidence in the Israeli report.“We could never expect any type of accountability or legitimate investigation from the very entity responsible for gunning down an unarmed and clearly identifiable journalist,” she said.The family said an independent American investigation was “the bare minimum the US government should do for one of their own citizens”. But it also called for an international criminal court investigation, calling Abu Aqleh’s killing a “war crime”.Critics say the Israeli military has a long history of dissembling and making false claims over the killings of civilians while waiting for attention to move elsewhere. But the Abu Aqleh family was able to maintain interest in the case, and pressure on the Biden White House, because she was a US citizen.Israel’s account shifted several times over the four months since the journalist was shot.Immediately after the killing, the Israeli prime minister at the time, Naftali Bennett, said it “appears likely that armed Palestinians, who were firing indiscriminately at the time, were responsible”.The Israeli embassy in Washington posted a tweet purportedly showing the Palestinian gunmen who killed Abu Aqleh and then deleted it. The Israeli government released footage that created the impression the journalist was in the midst of a major battle. The Israeli human rights group, B’Tselem, released its own video showing that the government’s footage was filmed several blocks from where Abu Aqleh was shot.As criticism grew, Bennett’s office condemned “hasty accusations against Israel”, and pro-Israel pressure groups attacked media investigations of the killing which challenged the official version.During the following weeks, the Israeli army admitted that one of its soldiers may have been responsible but claimed it was not able to carry out a proper investigation because the Palestinian Authority would not cooperate and hand over the bullet that killed the journalist.The US state department said it welcomed the “review of this tragic incident”. But it faced criticism for sidestepping demands that the soldier or soldiers responsible be held to account and for instead calling for “policies and procedures to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future”.TopicsUS politicsIsraelPalestinian territoriesJournalist safetyMiddle East and north AfricanewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US says clashes with Iran-backed militias won’t affect Tehran nuclear talks

      by

      US says clashes with Iran-backed militias won’t affect Tehran nuclear talks Nuclear negotiations under way, as US-led mission against the Islamic State exchanges fire with armed groups in Syria and Iraq US-led forces and Iran-backed militias exchanged fire for the second day in a row, but the Biden administration said the fighting would not affect nuclear negotiations with Tehran.US Central Command said the two bases, Conoco and Green Village, used for the US-led mission against the Islamic State (IS) had come under rocket attack on Wednesday evening, but there were no serious injuries. The US struck back with attack helicopters, killing “two or three suspected Iran-backed militants conducting one of the attacks” and destroying vehicles.“The response was proportional and deliberate,” a CentCom statement said. “The United States does not seek conflict with Iran, but we will continue to take the measures necessary to protect and defend our people.”US officials have stressed there is no connection between the fighting between the US and alleged Iranian proxies, and the delicate endgame of negotiations to revive a 2015 agreement between Iran and major powers which has largely disintegrated since Donald Trump withdrew the US in 2018.The state department confirmed that the US had sent a response on Wednesday to Iranian proposals on ways to return to the deal. Iran said that it had received the US response and was studying it. Both the US and Iran responses follow a proposed EU blueprint for restarting the nuclear deal, by which Iran would roll back its nuclear program in return for sanctions relief.John Kirby, spokesman for the US national security council said Iran had made some concessions which had closed the distance between the negotiating positions but added: “Gaps remain. We’re not there yet.”As the nuclear negotiations appeared to end the final stretch, fighting flared up in Syria, where the US-led anti-IS coalition are in close proximity to Tehran-supported militia in Syria and Iraq. Wednesday’s clash came a day after US airstrikes against targets in Deir Azzour, which Washington said were arms bunkers used by militias affiliated to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). That action was taken in retaliation for drone attacks on US military outposts on 15 August.Kahl said Tuesday’s US strikes had struck nine bunkers, and had originally targeted 11 but people had been seen near two of them. The aim was not to cause casualties but to send a deterrent message, he said.“Our response was extraordinarily carefully calibrated. It was meant to be proportional to the attacks that the Iran-backed groups carried out on 15 August. It was very precise,” he said.There have been a succession of attacks on the residual US military mission in Syria, left behind to monitor and contain the remnants of IS. Kahl said the decision was taken to strike back after the 15 August drone attack in part because wreckage from a downed drone could be traced back directly to Tehran. He added that US airstrikes were also a cumulative response to a series of attacks by Iranian-based militias.“We don’t want Iran to draw the wrong conclusion that they can continue just doing this and get away with it,” he said.He insisted the US military operations in Syria were not linked to negotiations on the nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).“Whether the JCPOA is reborn or not, it actually has nothing to do with our willingness and resolve to defend ourselves,” Kahl said. “I think the strike last night was a pretty clear communication to the Iranians that these things are on different tracks.”Ellie Geranmayeh, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said there were signs of anticipation on both sides of a deal being clinched.“The US and Iranian governments have begun shifting the message for their audiences in expectation of something happening,” Geranmayeh said.The Iranian press has noticeably changed tone over recent weeks, swapping nationalistic and anti-western views for more neutral positions on the deal, which Iranian leaders have framed as a pillar of sovereignty.The Israeli government, which has struggled to prevent the JCPOA being reborn, struck a defiant tone as the prospect of a new deal rose.“We are not prepared to live with a nuclear threat above our heads from an extremist, violent Islamist regime,” the prime minister, Yair Lapid, said. “This will not happen, because we will not let it happen.”TopicsIranSyriaUS foreign policyUS militaryUS politicsMiddle East and north AfricanewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Aipac hails Democrat’s defeat for not being sufficiently pro-Israel

      by

      Aipac hails Democrat’s defeat for not being sufficiently pro-IsraelDonna Edwards, leading contender in Maryland primary for safe seat, lost after pro-Israeli groups poured millions to block her Pro-Israel groups have heralded the defeat of a leading Democratic contender for Congress after pouring millions of dollars into blocking her election, for failing to be sufficiently supportive of Israeli government policies.Donna Edwards, who was for months the favourite to win the primary for a safe seat in Maryland, lost to Glenn Ivey on Tuesday after the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) and allied groups waded into the race.Aipac proclaimed Ivey’s victory, by 51% to 35%, as evidence that “being pro-Israel is both good policy and good politics”.Edwards’s defeat will be taken as a warning by other Democratic contenders not to criticise Israeli policies, or risk a well-funded campaign against them.Aipac and its allies spent nearly $7m through political action committees to block Edwards, who served eight years as the first Black woman elected to Congress from Maryland before losing a bid for the Senate in 2016.Edwards was endorsed by the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and other leading Democrats.But she angered some pro-Israel groups during her earlier stint in Congress by failing to back Israeli attacks on Gaza and for her support of the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran when it was strongly opposed by the Israeli government.Following Ivey’s victory, Aipac declared it had helped nine “pro-Israel Democrats defeat their anti-Israel opponents in 2022!”.Another group, Pro-Israel America, also heralded Edwards defeat.It said: “Ivey’s victory once again demonstrates that strong pro-Israel stances are both good policy and politics, as his commitment to advancing the US-Israel relationship starkly contrasted with the positions of the candidate he defeated.”However, the campaign against Edwards rarely focused on her positions on Israel and much of the spending that went to saturate the airwaves with hostile advertising questioning her work ethic came from Republican billionaires.Aipac’s political action committee, the United Democracy Project, has received substantial donations from Trump campaign funders Paul Singer and Bernie Marcus, as well as the billionaire Israeli-American Democratic donor, Haim Saban.A more liberal pro-Israel group, J Street, which backed Edwards, said it was “extremely alarmed” by the part played by Aipac’s money in deciding Democratic races.“They targeted [Edwards] for defeat simply for holding principled, mainstream Democratic views about US diplomatic leadership in the Middle East, while their spokespeople baselessly smeared her as ‘anti-Israel’. It’s a deeply harmful trend we’ve seen again and again in this cycle.”J Street has warned that Aipac and its Republican funders are trying to drive the Democrats “into more rightward direction on Israel and foreign policy” by intimidating candidates into “feeling that they cannot offer good faith criticism of Israeli policy, that they cannot vocally support Palestinian rights”.TopicsMarylandDemocratsUS politicsIsraelUS foreign policyMiddle East and north AfricanewsReuse this content More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Pro-Israel hardliners spend millions to transform Democratic primaries

      by

      Pro-Israel hardliners spend millions to transform Democratic primariesCritics say Aipac and its allies are seeking to influence Democratic politics with money from Republican billionaires Pro-Israel lobby groups have poured millions of dollars into a Democratic primary for a Maryland congressional seat on Tuesday, in the latest attempt to block an establishment candidate who expressed support for the Palestinians.A surge in political spending by organisations funded by hardline supporters of Israel, led by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), has reshaped Democratic primaries over recent months even though debate about the country rarely figures as a major issue in the elections.Critics accuse Aipac and its allies of distorting Democratic politics in part because much of the money used to influence primary races comes from billionaire Republicans.Aipac has spent $6m on Tuesday’s contest in Maryland, more than any other organisation, to oppose Donna Edwards, who served eight years as the first Black woman elected to Congress from Maryland before losing a bid for the Senate in 2016.Edwards is endorsed by the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, among other leading Democrats.The other Joe: how Manchin destroys Biden’s plans, angering DemocratsRead moreBut she angered some pro-Israel groups during her stint as a representative by failing to back resolutions in support of Israel over its 2011 war in Gaza and other positions. She also backed the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran when it was strongly opposed by the Israeli government and therefore Aipac.Aipac launched a super political action committee, or super Pac, the United Democracy Project (UDP), in December as a legal mechanism to spend unlimited amounts to directly influence elections and counter growing criticism within the Democratic party of Israel’s continued domination of the Palestinians.The lobby group kickstarted the UDP with $8.5m and donations from wealthy donors with close ties to Israel. They include two Republican billionaire businessmen and Trump campaign funders, Paul Singer and Bernie Marcus, as well as the billionaire Israeli American Democratic donor Haim Saban.UDP-funded television ads criticising Edwards make no mention of Israel and instead attack her as an ineffective politician who got nothing done during her stint in Congress. Over the past two months, Edwards has lost a significant lead in opinion polls over her rival, Glenn Ivey, who is now marginally ahead.A more liberal pro-Israel group, J Street, which calls for the US government to take a harder line with the Israeli government to end to the occupation, has backed Edwards through its Super Pac with about $700,000 in ads.A J Street spokesperson, Logan Bayroff, accused Aipac of being a Republican front organisation in part because of its endorsement of members of Congress who voted to overturn Joe Biden’s election victory following the 6 January 2021 storming of the Capitol.“It’s alarming that a group that has endorsed some of the most rightwing extremist Republicans, with a super Pac funded in part by Republican billionaire megadonors, could go into a Democratic primary and spend and spend with the single-minded purpose of crushing a fairly popular mainstream candidate who they’ve labelled anti-Israel with no evidence, no real justification at all, for such a claim,” Bayroff said.“This is all about trying to drive the party back into more rightward direction on Israel and foreign policy. It’s really alarming and it’s fundamentally anti-democratic when a group can influence this process in such a way because most voters wouldn’t know where this money is coming from. I think that’s dangerous.”Bayroff said Aipac and UDP were attempting to intimidate candidates into “feeling that they cannot offer good faith criticism of Israeli policy, that they cannot vocally support Palestinian rights”.“They recognise that the political space on these issues in the Democratic party has opened up and they want to try to arrest and reverse that trend, and push us back to a place in which there’s really very little public debate or discussion about the correct American role in the region,” he said.The most visible sign of that shift has come from members of “the Squad” of congressional progressives – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib – who are unusually vocal in their support of the Palestinian cause. Opinion polls also show that younger Democrats, including American Jews, are more openly critical of Israel.A UDP spokesman, Patrick Dorton, dismissed J Street’s accusations including the charge of being a Republican front group by pointing to Saban’s financial support.“We’re exercising our democratic first amendment rights in participating in these elections. If you want to look at politicians who’ve intimidated people and chilled discussion on the US Israel relationship, look at the Squad,” he said.“In part UDP was formed because there were an increasing number of candidates with radical anti-Israel views running for Congress. Our view is that is dangerous for American democracy and could negatively impact the the bipartisan support for the US-Israel relationship.”UDP and other pro-Israel groups, such as the Democratic Majority for Israel and Pro-Israel America, have spent heavily to oppose candidates regarded as anti-Israel in Democratic primaries from Texas to Ohio and California.The UDP helped defeat six of seven contenders it opposed, including the co-chair of Bernie Sanders’ most recent presidential campaign, Nina Turner, in a solid Democratic seat in Ohio. Turner, who has argued that substantial US aid to Israel should not be used to perpetuate the occupation of Palestinian land, at one point held a lead of 30 percentage points – but lost.TopicsUS politicsIsraelDemocratsUS foreign policyMiddle East and north AfricanewsReuse this content More