Palestinian territories

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Blinken: Republicans ‘playing politics’ by attacking Biden over Israeli crisis

      by

      US party leaders in Washington have wasted no time in turning the Middle East conflict into a domestic political dispute, with senior Republicans accusing both the Biden administration and each other of having triggered the violence.The secretary of state, Antony Blinken, charged top Republicans with exploiting the crisis for their own political ends after several Republican presidential hopefuls accused the Biden administration of effectively causing the conflagration. “It’s deeply unfortunate that some are playing politics when so many lives have been lost and Israel remains under attack,” Blinken told CNN’s State of the Union.The reported presence of US citizens among the dead and captured from the Hamas attack on Israel is likely to inflame the partisan mud-slinging between Republican leaders and the White House. Several presidential candidates accused Joe Biden of being partly responsible for the crisis, blaming him for appeasing Iran through the recent deal involving the return of five detained Americans in exchange for the release of $6bn in frozen Iranian funds for humanitarian use.Blinken insisted on Sunday that none of the $6bn had yet been liquidated. “Not a single dollar has been spent from that account. The account is closely regulated by the US treasury department, so it can only be used for things like food, medicine, medical equipment – that’s what this is about,” he told CNN.Tim Scott, the Republican senator from South Carolina who is vying for his party’s presidential nomination, went so far as to accuse Biden personally of being “complicit” in the Hamas attack. “Biden’s weakness invited the attack, Biden’s negotiation funded the attack,” he said on social media.Nikki Haley, Donald Trump’s former UN ambassador and another 2024 White House hopeful, also turned on the US president, saying that Blinken’s assurance that the $6bn had not yet been released was duplicitous. “Hamas knows, and Iran knows, they’re moving money around as we speak, because they know $6bn is going to be released. That’s the reality,” she said.The sniping was not limited to cross-party wrangling. Top Republicans also attacked each other over the Israeli crisis.The former vice-president and presidential hopeful Mike Pence seized the opportunity to take a pot shot at his former running mate Trump as well as two other rivals in the Republican presidential contest.Pence told CNN’s State of the Union that the Middle East violence was partly catalysed by their calls for America to withdraw from the world stage. He pointed his finger specifically at the former US president, the entrepreneur, and the Florida governor respectively who have raised doubts about US funding to support Ukraine.“This is what happens when we have leading voices like Donald Trump and Vivek Ramaswamy and Ron DeSantis signaling retreat from America’s role as leader of the free world. What happened in Ukraine was an unprovoked invasion by Russia, what happened this weekend was an unprovoked invasion by Hamas into Israel,” he said.Top Republicans also lambasted their party peers for the vacuum in leadership in the House of Representatives at such a critical moment. Last week Kevin McCarthy was ousted as speaker of the House by the hard-right flank of the party, and a replacement has yet to be found.Another presidential hopeful, the former governor of New Jersey Chris Christie, said that the outbreak of fighting in the Middle East had made a bad business on Capitol Hill worse. “The actions taken by some members of my party were wholly irresponsible without this going on, they’re now putting an even brighter light on the irresponsibility of not having someone in place,” he told ABC’s This Week.Michael McCaul, the Republican chair of the House foreign affairs committee, also lamented the absence of leadership. “It wasn’t my idea to oust the speaker,” he told CNN.“I thought it was dangerous. What kind of message are we sending to our adversaries when we can’t govern, when we are dysfunctional, when we don’t even have a speaker of the House. That’s a terrible message.” More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US-Saudi talks amid reports of far-reaching diplomatic plan for Middle East

      by

      The US national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, has held talks with the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, in Jeddah, in what was reported to be part of a bid for an ambitious and far-reaching diplomatic breakthrough in the region.The White House said Sullivan and the prince discussed on Thursday “initiatives to advance a common vision for a more peaceful, secure, prosperous and stable Middle East region interconnected with the world”.A New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman, said that based on an interview with Joe Biden last week, he believed Sullivan went to Jeddah to “explore the possibility of some kind of US-Saudi-Israeli-Palestinian understanding”.The deal would amount to a grand bargain involving a US-Saudi security pact and the normalisation of Saudi-Israel diplomatic relations, in which recognition of Israel would be exchanged, on Washington’s insistence, on some improvement in the plight of Palestinians in the occupied territories, such as a halt to Jewish settlement building, and a promise never to annex the West Bank.Friedman said Biden had yet to make up his mind whether to proceed and the talks in Jeddah were exploratory. Any such deal, he said, would be “time-consuming, difficult and complex”.Bruce Riedel, a former CIA Middle East analyst and White House adviser, said the idea of such a multifaceted agreement was politically far-fetched.“The Saudis don’t want to see Joe Biden re-elected. They strongly prefer Donald Trump being back in the White House. He never questioned them on human rights issues, he supported the Yemen war 100%, he did nothing to them after [Washington Post columnist and Saudi dissident] Jamal Khashoggi was murdered,” Riedel said.“So there is a big question mark about why would the Saudis do something which would be so beneficial to Joe Biden. I don’t see that in the works, and I would assume the Biden people are smart enough to recognise this.”Getting the Senate to approve a security pact with Saudi Arabia would also be extremely difficult. Republicans would not want to help Biden achieve diplomatic progress and most Democrats would resist US commitments to a Saudi monarchy with such a bad human rights record, and demand substantial gains for the Palestinians, which Benjamin Netanyahu’s hard-rightwing Israeli government would not accept.Khaled Elgindy, a Palestinian expert at the Middle East Institute, said that the extremists in Netanyahu’s cabinet would “shoot down” proposals of a settlement freeze and territorial transfers within the West Bank to Palestinian Authority control, “never mind taking substantive steps toward a two-state solution, which is simply not on the table”.“The other aspect of this that I find unsettling is the way it totally sidesteps Palestinian interests and even Palestinian agency,” Elgindy said. “It’s like we’ve gone back to the days when the US, Israel and Arab states could decide the fate of Palestinians without any Palestinian involvement. This alone should disqualify it from being taken seriously – but of course it won’t.”Friedman said Saudi demands would include guarantees that the US would come to the kingdom’s defence if attacked, that Washington would allow a US-monitored Saudi civil nuclear programme, and that the kingdom could buy an advanced US air defence system, Thaad.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionMatt Duss, former foreign policy adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders, called the first demand a “non-starter” and the second and third “very bad ideas”.“Biden is weighing a world historical sucker’s bet,” Duss said on social media.Kirsten Fontenrose, a former senior director for the Gulf at the national security council during the Donald Trump administration, was also pessimistic about the chances for success.“I expect the Palestinian Authority to refuse to recognise a Saudi-Israel peace deal … the Israeli government to refuse a promise never to annex; the US Congress to refuse a collective defense pact with Saudi Arabia; the Saudi leadership to refuse to agree publicly never to weaponise their nuclear programme as long as Iran is close to doing so,” Fontenrose said. Riedel said there were more modest diplomatic gains to be won from engagement with the Saudi leadership, such as a further winding down of the conflict in Yemen, and Saudi aid to the occupied territories in the effort to forestall a third intifada, a Palestinian uprising against the expansion of settlements and other measures from an extreme Israeli government.The White House said that in his Jeddah talks, Sullivan had “reviewed significant progress to build on the benefits of the truce in Yemen that have endured over the past 16 months and welcomed ongoing UN-led efforts to bring the war to a close”. More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      US domestic elections play key role in its foreign policy | Letters

      by

      Jonathan Freedland’s perceptive analysis of the progress/decline of Northern Ireland and Israel respectively since 1998 misses one important dynamic (Netanyahu is leading a coup against his own country. But the threat is not only to Israel, 31 March): the role the American domestic electoral cycle plays in influencing US foreign policy.I worked in Washington DC for the congressman Gary Ackerman (Democrat, Queens, New York) from 1989 to 1990. The substantial Jewish-American and Irish-American populations in his congressional district led Gary to take dramatically contrasting positions to Israel and Northern Ireland. Whereas he backed Israel’s policies without question, he also seemed to be a staunch supporter of Irish republicanism.This electoral imperative is, arguably, an important factor why US representatives who are not Irish-American have been members of the Irish caucus in Congress over the years. The importance of re-election is one reason why the Good Friday agreement is sacrosanct in Washington, and the lack of such a motive with regards to Palestinian issues hinders resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.Michael HerronLondon I always value Jonathan Freedland’s commentaries, never more so than at present, when Israel is fighting for its democratic soul. I feel anguished to see the democratic hopes and ideals of Israel’s founders torn to shreds by this far-right government.Jonathan Freedland provides a compass and wake-up call for all who care about Israel’s future, and I am grateful for that. I support the democratic movement which, hopefully, will continue to gather momentum, in Israel and among the diaspora. Elizabeth Barnell Shrewsbury, Shropshire More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Pompeo says Israel has biblical claim to Palestine and is ‘not an occupying nation’

      by

      Pompeo says Israel has biblical claim to Palestine and is ‘not an occupying nation’Trump’s secretary of state makes comments on podcast to defend former administration siding more openly with Israel Mike Pompeo, the former US secretary of state, has defended Israel’s decades-long control of the Palestinian territories by claiming that the Jewish state has a biblical claim to the land and is therefore not occupying it.Pompeo told the One Decision podcast that his religious beliefs, US strategic interests and his view of the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, as a “known terrorist” underpinned his support as the Trump administration’s top diplomat for the shift in US policy away from mediating a two-state solution and toward more openly siding with Israel.Democrats’ Ilhan Omar defence weakened by party’s own attacks over IsraelRead more“[Israel] is not an occupying nation. As an evangelical Christian, I am convinced by my reading of the Bible that 3,000 years on now, in spite of the denial of so many, [this land] is the rightful homeland of the Jewish people,” he said.Pompeo, who referred to the occupied West Bank by its Israeli name of Judea and Samaria, declined to support a two-state solution of an independent Palestine alongside Israel – an increasingly diminishing prospect after years of failed negotiations and the rise to power of politicians in Israel who advocate annexing the occupied territories.“I’m for an outcome that guarantees Israeli security and makes the lives better for everyone in the region,” he said.Pompeo, who once suggested that God sent Trump to save Israel, was speaking ahead of publication of a book, Never Give an Inch: Fighting for the America I Love, that has fuelled speculation he is laying the groundwork for a presidential run.As secretary of state he reversed a number of longstanding US policies, including overturning legal advice from 1978 that declared Israel’s settlements in the West Bank “inconsistent with international law”. Most western governments, such as the UK, say the settlements and Israel’s annexation of occupied East Jerusalem are a breach of the Geneva conventions and are therefore illegal.Pompeo was Trump’s CIA director before his appointment as secretary of state in 2018. He played an instrumental role in an administration thatrecognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moved the US embassy to that city from Tel Aviv. The move was widely criticised, including by Washington’s allies, as pre-empting a final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.Pompeo said it is in the US’s interests to back Israel whatever its policies, and he blamed the Palestinians for the failure of peace negotiations.“What’s in America’s best interest? Is it to sit and wait for Abu Mazen [Abbas], a known terrorist who’s killed lots and lots of people, including Americans … to draw a line on a map? That’s what the state department would do,” he said.“The previous secretary of state ran back and forth from Tel Aviv to Ramallah and tried to draw lines on a map. We said: ‘That’s not in America’s best interest. Let’s go create peace,’ and we did.”Pompeo was part of the Trump administration team that negotiated the Abraham accords normalisation agreements between Israel and several formerly hostile countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Morocco and Sudan. At the time he said the accords were part of the administration’s efforts to ensure that “that this Jewish state remains”.“I am confident that the Lord is at work here,” he said.TopicsMike PompeoIsraelRepublicansPalestinian territoriesUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 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

    • 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

    • 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

    • 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