More stories

  • in

    Netanyahu’s Cynical Political Game

    It has become clear that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel is not the leader for this critical moment.The devastation of Gaza is at intolerable levels and getting worse; the Israeli government is under intense pressure from the families of hostages to do far more to free them before they perish; the United States and Arab states, anxious to avoid a regional war, are trying to mediate an end to the conflict. But Mr. Netanyahu blocks the way.As a majority of Israelis and their allies can see, Mr. Netanyahu and his insistence on “total victory” over Hamas, with no consideration of the consequences or costs, have become a part of the problem. He is playing a cynical game, using the war to serve his political ends, and Israelis, most of whom support the effort to wipe out Hamas, are getting tired of it.He has even managed to alienate Israel’s most important ally. Despite President Biden’s display of total support for Israel — and Mr. Netanyahu — after the atrocious attack by Hamas on Oct. 7, including the president’s personal visit to the Jewish state, Mr. Netanyahu has deliberately and publicly defied American advice as contrary to Israel’s “vital interests.” A particularly contentious conversation in late December ended with Mr. Biden angrily declaring, “This conversation is over.” It was a month before Mr. Biden phoned again.The problem is not necessarily Mr. Netanyahu’s hawkish stance, which is shared by many Israelis enraged by the barbaric Hamas raid. It is Mr. Netanyahu’s confusion of leadership with political survival, with the widespread perception that he opposes any negotiated settlement, and any American advice or mediation, not because he really believes they run counter to Israelis’ interests, as he claims, but because appearing to stand up to “American pressure,” and portraying the Gaza war as a far broader conflict about a Palestinian state and Iran, serves his political ends.That, at least, appears to be what a majority of Israelis believe, even those who might otherwise align with the prime minister’s insistence on trying to fully eradicate Hamas. According to a political poll taken in late December, only 15 percent of Israelis wanted him to stay in office after the war ended.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

  • in

    A Sweeping Climate Deal, and a U.N. Gaza Cease-Fire Vote

    The New York Times Audio app is home to journalism and storytelling, and provides news, depth and serendipity. If you haven’t already, download it here — available to Times news subscribers on iOS — and sign up for our weekly newsletter.The Headlines brings you the biggest stories of the day from the Times journalists who are covering them, all in about five minutes.Nearly 200 countries convened by the United Nations approved a plan to ramp up renewable energy and rapidly transition away from coal, oil and gas.Fadel Dawod/Getty ImagesOn Today’s Episode:In a First, Nations at Climate Summit Agree to Move Away From Fossil Fuels, by Brad PlumerU.N. General Assembly Votes for Israel-Hamas Cease-Fire, Countering U.S. Veto, by Farnaz FassihiCheating Fears Over Chatbots Were Overblown, New Research Suggests, by Natasha Singer‘Apollo 13’ and ‘The Nightmare Before Christmas’ Join National Film Registry, by Sarah BahrJessica Metzger and More

  • in

    Trump’s Remarks on Hezbollah and Netanyahu Prompt Bipartisan Outcry

    Republican rivals and the White House were among those to roundly condemn the former president for his characterization of the Lebanese militant group.Former President Donald J. Trump drew scorn from both sides of the political aisle on Thursday for remarks that he made one day earlier criticizing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and referring to Hezbollah, the Iran-backed militant group, as “very smart.”During a speech to his supporters in West Palm Beach, Fla., on Wednesday, he weighed in on the Hamas attacks on Israel, the worst experienced by America’s closest Middle East ally in half a century.Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite group, has clashed with Israeli forces in the days after Hamas fighters from Gaza attacked border areas in southern Israel, intensifying concerns that the country could be drawn into a conflict on a second front.“You know, Hezbollah is very smart,” Mr. Trump said. “They’re all very smart.”He took swipes at Mr. Netanyahu on the “Brian Kilmeade Show,” a Fox News Radio show, broadcast on Thursday, arguing that intelligence lapses by Israel had left it vulnerable to the sweeping attack, kidnappings and slaughter of civilians leading to the war.A broad spectrum of political rivals condemned Mr. Trump on Thursday, including the White House and several of his Republican primary opponents.“Statements like this are dangerous and unhinged,” Andrew Bates, the deputy White House press secretary, said in a statement. “It’s completely lost on us why any American would ever praise an Iran-backed terrorist organization as ‘smart.’ Or have any objection to the United States warning terrorists not to attack Israel.”While filing paperwork on Thursday to appear on the Republican primary ballot in New Hampshire, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who is running a distant second to Mr. Trump in national polls, also admonished his main rival.“You’re not going to find me throwing verbal grenades at Israeli leadership,” said Mr. DeSantis, whose campaign shared a clip Wednesday night of Mr. Trump’s Hezbollah remarks on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.Former Vice President Mike Pence similarly objected to Mr. Trump’s rhetoric, saying that his former boss was sending the wrong message.“Well look, this is no time for the former president or any other American leader to be sending any other message than America stands with Israel,” Mr. Pence said during a radio interview with “New Hampshire Today.”Mr. Pence disputed Mr. Trump’s characterization of Hezbollah and pointed out that Mr. Trump’s compliments to a brutal figure were not new: Mr. Trump referred to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia as a “genius” and “very savvy” after Russia invaded Ukraine last year. And as president, Mr. Trump praised Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader, as “very honorable.”“Look, Hezbollah are not smart,” Mr. Pence said on Thursday. “They’re evil, OK.”Gov. J.B. Pritzker of Illinois, a Democrat who is a national advisory board member for President Biden’s re-election campaign, slammed Mr. Trump in a statement on Thursday.“No true friend of Israel, the Jewish people or of peace would praise Hezbollah just days after what President Biden and Jewish leaders have called the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust,” Mr. Pritzker said.In a statement on Thursday, Steven Cheung, a spokesman for the Trump campaign, defended Mr. Trump’s comments. He accused the Biden administration of telegraphing its concerns about the potential for a Hezbollah offensive in northern Israel, and he cited a background briefing that a senior defense official gave to the media on Monday.But the Israeli Army had already been engaged in clashes with armed militants along the country’s volatile northern frontier for several days. On Sunday, the day before the briefing, The Associated Press reported that Hezbollah had fired dozens of rockets and shells at three Israeli positions in a disputed area along Lebanon’s border with the Golan Heights.“Hezbollah has operated there for decades,” Mr. Bates said. “And the United States’ words of deterrence have been welcomed across the board in Israel — unlike some other words that come to mind.”Mr. Trump, who has frequently sought to cast himself as a champion for Israel, maligned Mr. Netanyahu on multiple occasions in recent days.On Wednesday in Florida he said that Israel had in 2020 opted out of participating in the U.S. drone strike that killed Iran’s top security and intelligence commander, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, who the Pentagon said had been planning attacks on Americans across the region — despite its coordination on the plan.“But I’ll never forget,” Mr. Trump said. “I’ll never forget that Bibi Netanyahu let us down. That was a very terrible thing.”In the “Brian Kilmeade Show” interview, the former president criticized Mr. Netanyahu and Israeli intelligence as being poorly prepared for the attacks by Hamas on Saturday.“Thousands of people knew about it, and they let this slip by,” he said. “That was not a good thing for him or for anybody.”Mr. DeSantis said that Mr. Trump had crossed the line with his attack on Mr. Netanyahu.“We all need to be on the same page,” he said. “Now is not the time to air personal grievances about an Israeli prime minister. Now is the time to support their right to defend themselves to the hilt.”Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota and former Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, who are also challenging Mr. Trump for the Republican nomination, condemned his remarks as well.“Shame on you, Donald,” Mr. Hutchinson wrote on X. “Your constant compliments to dictators, terrorist groups, and evil-doers are beneath the office you seek and not reflective of the American character.”Speaking to reporters in New Hampshire, Mr. Burgum said that “smart” was not how he would describe Hezbollah or Hamas.“I’d call them barbaric,” he said. “I’d call them inhumane. I’d call it unthinkable. But what Hezbollah and Hamas have done, but I don’t think I’d characterize them in any positive fashion — not when you see this incredible ability to conduct the atrocities that most of us would find as unthinkable and unimaginable.”In an interview on CNN on Thursday, Chris Christie, the former New Jersey governor, told the anchor Wolf Blitzer: “Only a fool would make those kinds of comments. Only a fool would give comments that could give aid and comfort to Israel’s adversary in this situation.”While campaigning in New Hampshire on Thursday, Nikki Haley criticized Mr. Trump in response to a question from a voter during a town hall. “I don’t want him hitting Netanyahu,” she said, adding: “Who cares what he thinks about Netanyahu? This is not about that. This is about the people of Israel.”Jazmine Ulloa More

  • in

    Trump and Other GOP Candidates Use Israel-Gaza to Criticize Biden

    Republicans renewed their opposition to President Biden’s decision to unfreeze $6 billion for humanitarian purposes as part of recent hostage release negotiations.Republican presidential candidates seized on the Hamas attack on Israel Saturday to try to lay blame on President Biden, drawing a connection between the surprise assault and a recent hostage release deal between the United States and Iran, a longtime backer of the group.Former President Donald J. Trump, who has frequently presented himself as a unflinching ally of Israel and who moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv in 2018, blamed Mr. Biden for the conflict.While campaigning on Saturday in Waterloo, Iowa, he said the attacks had occurred because “we are perceived as being weak and ineffective, with a really weak leader.”On several occasions, Mr. Trump went further, saying that the hostage deal was a catalyst of the attacks. “The war happened for two reasons,” he said. “The United States is giving — and gave to Iran — $6 billion over hostages.”In exchange for the release of five Americans held in Tehran, the Biden administration agreed in August to free up $6 billion in frozen Iranian oil revenue funds for humanitarian purposes. The administration has emphasized that the money could be used only for “food, medicine, medical equipment that would not have a dual military use.”A senior Biden administration official responded to the comments by Mr. Trump — as well as to criticism by other Republican candidates — by calling them “total lies” and accusing the politicians of having either a “complete misunderstanding” of the facts or of participating willingly in a “complete mischaracterization and disinformation of facts.”Another Biden administration official, Adrienne Watson, a spokesperson for the National Security Council, said in a statement, “These funds have absolutely nothing to do with the horrific attacks today, and this is not the time to spread disinformation.”Mr. Trump, the G.O.P. front-runner, was not alone in assailing Mr. Biden, as the entire Republican field weighed in on the attacks on Saturday.In a video posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida faulted the Biden administration for its foreign policy decisions in the Middle East.“Iran has helped fund this war against Israel, and Joe Biden’s policies that have gone easy on Iran has helped to fill their coffers,” he said. “Israel is now paying the price for those policies.”In a statement issued through the White House, Mr. Biden pledged solidarity with Israel and said that he had spoken with Benjamin Netanyahu, the country’s prime minister.“The United States unequivocally condemns this appalling assault against Israel by Hamas terrorists from Gaza, and I made clear to Prime Minister Netanyahu that we stand ready to offer all appropriate means of support to the Government and people of Israel,” Mr. Biden said.Yet while the G.O.P. candidates rallied around Israel on Saturday, there is a divide in the party between foreign policy hawks and those who favor a more isolationist approach.In addition to criticizing Mr. Biden on Saturday, former Vice President Mike Pence had harsh words for fellow Republicans who prefer a more hands-off approach to conflicts abroad.“This is what happens when @POTUS projects weakness on the world stage, kowtows to the mullahs in Iran with a $6 Billion ransom, and leaders in the Republican Party signal American retreat as Leader of the Free World,” Mr. Pence wrote on X. “Weakness arouses evil.”Other Republican candidates, including Nikki Haley, who was an ambassador to the United Nations under Mr. Trump, and Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina denounced the attacks as acts of terrorism.“Make no mistake: Hamas is a bloodthirsty terrorist organization backed by Iran and determined to kill as many innocent lives as possible,” Ms. Haley said in a statement.Former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey echoed the criticism of his Republican rivals in a social media post, calling the release of $6 billion by the Biden administration to Iran “idiotic.” Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota and Mr. Hutchinson similarly sought to connect the attack with the release of humanitarian funds for Iran.Vivek Ramaswamy, the biotech entrepreneur, called the attacks “barbaric and medieval” in a post on X.“Shooting civilians and kidnapping children are war crimes,” he wrote. “Israel’s right to exist & defend itself should never be doubted and Iran-backed Hamas & Hezbollah cannot be allowed to prevail.”Michael Gold More

  • in

    Biden Administration Engages in Long-Shot Attempt for Saudi-Israel Deal

    The president and his aides are pressing an aggressive diplomatic effort as Riyadh makes significant demands in exchange for normalization, including a nuclear deal and a robust U.S. security pact.Shortly after his plane took off earlier this month from Riyadh, where he had held a lengthy meeting with Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken called a different Middle East leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel.Over 40 minutes, Mr. Blinken gave the Israeli leader a briefing about the significant demands the young crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, was making for his nation to normalize diplomatic relations with Israel. Mr. Netanyahu had an update on his own demands.The phone call — described by two American officials — was a turn in the Biden administration’s long-shot bid to broker a landmark diplomatic deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel, two historical adversaries who in recent years have been engaged in a discreet courtship in part over their shared distrust of archrival Iran.The White House, which for more than two years has largely been content to sit out the poker game of Middle East diplomacy, has decided to make a bet and push some of its chips in. The United States is now in the midst of complex negotiations among three leaders who have their own reasons for a deal but are making demands that might prove to be too costly. And they simply do not much like or trust each other.Several senior American officials said the chances of a deal could be less than 50 percent, and Mr. Blinken said he had “no illusions” the path to a deal would be quick. Still, a normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel would be one of the most dramatic events in a continued realignment of the Middle East, and could reap benefits for leaders of both countries, as well as President Biden, who faces re-election next year.It would also make explicit what has been true for a long time: that the government of one of the Arab world’s most influential countries has effectively made its support for a Palestinian independent state a lower priority.For Mr. Netanyahu, Saudi Arabia’s recognition of Israel would be a significant political victory for the embattled leader, whose hard-right coalition government faces fierce domestic opposition.For his part, Prince Mohammed is seeking a strengthened security relationship with the United States, access to more American weapons and U.S. consent for the kingdom to enrich uranium as part of a civilian nuclear program — something that Washington has long resisted.For Mr. Biden, drawing closer to Saudi Arabia carries political risks — he once pledged to make Saudi Arabia a “pariah” — but a diplomatic pact in the Middle East could be a boon ahead of the 2024 election. American officials also see strategic importance in bolstering ties with Saudi Arabia: as a way to keep Riyadh from gravitating further toward China, two nations that have engaged in an increasingly warm embrace.Working against the prospects of a deal is the fact that all sides would have to reverse course on at least one long-held position: for Israel, that the country would never allow nuclear enrichment in the Saudi kingdom; for Saudi Arabia, that peace with Israel can only come after an established state for the Palestinian people; for Mr. Biden, cementing a closer alliance with Saudi Arabia would force him to make a public case for why he changed his position on Prince Mohammed.Several American officials described the current push by the Biden administration, and the chances for success, on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations. They said they believe a confluence of factors have created a window of time — perhaps before next year when the American election cycle intensifies — to pull together a possible accord. One of the factors is that a Democratic president might have a better chance than a Republican president of selling the deal to party members and bringing some in the political opposition along.Quiet efforts to repair U.S.-Saudi relationsSecretary of State Antony J. Blinken meeting with Prince Mohammed in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, this month. Mr. Blinken said he had “no illusions” the path to a deal would be quick.Pool photo by Amer HilabiIn recent weeks the Biden administration has accelerated the cadence of top officials traveling to Riyadh and Tel Aviv to meet with Prince Mohammed and Mr. Netanyahu. This week, just days after Mr. Blinken’s visit, Brett McGurk, the top White House official handling Middle East policy, led a delegation on an unpublicized trip to continue the negotiations, according to two American officials. Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, traveled to Saudi Arabia in May.“Biden has decided to go for it, and everyone in the administration now understands that the president wants this,” said Martin Indyk, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, who adds that a committed American president has long been essential for diplomatic breakthroughs between Israel and Arab nations. “When you’re talking about Middle East peace, it takes three to tango.”A new defense pact or nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia would face another hurdle: getting approval from a sharply divided Congress in which some prominent members of Mr. Biden’s party would likely vote against it. But odd political alliances have also formed, with one prominent Republican senator, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, quietly assisting the White House’s negotiations.The Saudi embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment. A representative for the National Security Council said that the Biden administration’s Middle East policy “includes efforts to expand and strengthen the Abraham Accords,” as well as efforts to normalize relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Mr. Netanyahu has made no secret of his hope to seal a deal with the Saudis.The prospect of a formal rapprochement between Israel and Saudi Arabia has percolated for years, but both sides have seen too many obstacles to make the idea a reality. When President Trump in September 2020 presided over the signing of the Abraham Accords — diplomatic agreements between Israel and two Gulf Arab nations — the Saudis were not ready to join the pact.Though Mr. Biden took a frosty attitude toward Prince Mohammed, known as MBS, in part over the killing of the journalist and Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi, he reluctantly visited the kingdom last July. Relations between the two countries hit a nadir in October, when the Saudis announced they were cutting oil production, a move that blindsided American officials.Saudi special forces performing during a military parade in Mecca last year. The Saudis are seeking fewer restrictions on U.S. arms sales to the kingdom.Amr Nabil/Associated PressThe two governments made quiet efforts to repair relations over the winter. Then in May, when Mr. Sullivan, the national security adviser, visited Riyadh, Prince Mohammed indicated a greater willingness to normalize relations with Israel. He agreed with Mr. Sullivan that this year might be the time to do it — but for the right price, said two people familiar with what transpired on the trip. This message, which Mr. Sullivan conveyed to Mr. Biden, seems to have swayed the president to make a push on a deal.This led to the visits to Riyadh this month of Mr. Blinken and Mr. McGurk.For Saudi Arabia, normalization with Israel is less about Israel and more about what it can get out of the United States, its historical security guarantor. Given how unpopular Israel remains among Saudi citizens, normalizing relations with the country would cost Prince Mohammed political capital with his own people, Saudi officials say. To justify that, they say, he would need to secure significant concessions from the United States, with an eye toward deterring Iran.But Prince Mohammed’s initial demands were steep: U.S. guarantees to defend Saudi Arabia from military attack, a Saudi-American partnership to enrich uranium for a civilian nuclear program and fewer restrictions on U.S. arms sales to the kingdom.Richard Goldberg, a White House official during the Trump administration and now a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which advocates for greater security for Israel, met with senior Saudi officials last month. In an interview, he said officials talk about uranium mining and enrichment for export revenue, but he believes that glosses over the real purpose: to have the means to build up a nuclear arsenal if Iran does the same.“The open question — the big question mark — is this: Is the uranium enrichment a red line, as MBS says, or is it an opening position?” said Mr. Goldberg, who is opposed to Iranian enrichment and has “strong discomfort” over the prospect of Saudi enrichment. “Whether it’s a bargaining position or truly a red line is not really known.”A big Israeli hurdle: Saudi nuclear enrichmentPrime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel could still face strong opposition from Israel’s national security establishment if he agrees to a Saudi enrichment program.Ronen Zvulun/ReutersMr. Netanyahu is in the most serious political crisis of his years as prime minister: he is on trial for corruption and the legal reform he tried to pass was met with mass protests in the country. If new elections were held tomorrow, polls suggest Mr. Netanyahu would lose.A landmark diplomatic arrangement could help reverse his political fortunes, some close to him believe. But consenting to a Saudi nuclear enrichment program would also be a reversal of longstanding policy in Israel, which worries that a Saudi nuclear program could lead to a nuclear arms race across the Middle East.Mr. Netanyahu could still face strong opposition from Israel’s national security establishment if he agrees to a Saudi enrichment program. A small group of Israeli aides has been entrusted to handle negotiations over a possible Saudi deal, including Ron Dermer, the minister of strategic affairs and a former ambassador to Washington, and Tzachi Hanegbi, the national security adviser. The group has visited Washington several times in recent months.With a hard-line government in Israel, there are no prospects for any deal that makes provisions for a Palestinian state. But for a rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Israel to take place, the Saudis and the Biden administration have insisted that any deal includes some concrete gestures for the Palestinians, officials say.What those might be remains unclear.Muslim families at the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. The Saudis and the Biden administration have insisted that any deal includes some concrete gestures for the Palestinians.Afif Amireh for The New York Times“Bibi wants this so badly he can taste it,” said Mr. Indyk. But, he said, unless there were real accommodations made by Israel toward the Palestinians, the deal would be ephemeral and U.S. concessions to the Saudis would be wasted. “The Saudis are supposed to deliver the Muslim world, but if the U.S. lets MBS leave the Palestinians behind, the whole thing becomes unstable.”In public, Saudi officials have repeatedly said that they will not establish relations with Israel without a deal that includes the creation of a Palestinian state — a line they have maintained since the kingdom led the 2002 Arab peace initiative, which offered Israel diplomatic relations with Arab countries in exchange for the establishment of a Palestinian state. Prince Mohammed reiterated that message at an Arab League summit last month.“The Palestinian cause was, and still is, the pivotal issue for Arabs and Muslims,” Prince Mohammed said. “It comes at the top of the kingdom’s foreign policy priorities.”Among the largest barriers to Saudi Arabia expanding its ties with Israel is public opinion. Even as the Gulf’s authoritarian rulers and business elites lean toward deepening their relationships with Israel, most Gulf citizens are opposed to full normalization. In an April poll by the Washington Institute, 78 percent of Saudis said the Abraham Accords would have a negative impact on the region.A divided Congress on Saudi relationsSenator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, left, has placed a hold on the sale of certain weapons to Saudi Arabia. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, right, has been more favorable to the Saudis.Tom Brenner for The New York TimesAny new defense pact or nuclear deal with the Saudis would require congressional approval, a tall order given the ambivalent or outright hostile attitude of some prominent Democratic lawmakers toward the kingdom.Along with Republican colleagues, lawmakers have denounced Prince Mohammed for the murder of Mr. Khashoggi — in which he has vehemently denied playing any role — and the mass killing of civilians in the war in Yemen. A top Democrat in the Senate, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, has placed a hold on the sale of certain weapons to Saudi Arabia.Lawmakers have also expressed their concerns over any move by Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium in its territory, citing proliferation concerns. For years, the State Department has been trying to negotiate what it calls a 123 agreement with the Saudis, which would lay out tough nonproliferation criteria to allow for American cooperation on civilian nuclear energy, though Saudi officials have balked at the restrictions in part because of Iran’s program. The United States has such an agreement with the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia’s neighbor, that bans in-country uranium enrichment.But Democratic and Republican lawmakers are generally supportive of promoting normalization between Israel and Arab nations, and they know that such accords can be a political gain to win over pro-Israel voters during election seasons.Aides working for the two top senators on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Menendez and Jim Risch, Republican of Idaho, are drafting a bill that calls for the U.S. government to try to deepen the Abraham Accords and expand what they call “regional integration.”Among the Republicans, an unlikely figure has stepped forward offering to help: Mr. Graham. In an interview, he said he has been working with top Biden administration officials to help to broker Saudi-Israeli peace.“Ending the Arab-Israeli conflict would be a game changer for the world and further isolate Iran,” he said.Mr. Graham says he has spoken to Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and minority leader, and other top G.OP. lawmakers, and said there would potentially be “a lot of support on the Republican side.” He met with Prince Mohammed in Riyadh earlier this year, and has frequent discussions with senior Israeli officials.Although he was one of the most strident critics of Prince Mohammed after Mr. Khashoggi’s killing and once called the crown prince “a wrecking ball to the region jeopardizing our national security interests on multiple fronts,” Mr. Graham has now changed his tune.While “the Khashoggi thing is no small matter,” he said he made a decision to re-engage with Saudi Arabia because it is in the interests of the United States — isolating Iran and possibly blunting China’s influence over Saudi Arabia.Mr. Graham also said it would also bring credit to former President Trump and Jared Kushner, the former president’s son-in-law, who brokered the diplomatic pacts between Israel and several Arab countries during the final months of his presidency.He also has parochial business interests: More arms deals with Saudi Arabia could bring economic benefits to his home state. In May, the senator praised Saudi Arabia’s decision to purchase more than $35 billion worth of Boeing Dreamliner jets, which are manufactured in South Carolina.During a celebratory event at Boeing’s South Carolina plant, he was ecstatic.“Let it be said that the journey to the future of the Middle East ran through Charleston, South Carolina!” he said.Eric Schmitt More

  • in

    Biden Faces New Challenges With Coalition on Ukraine Support

    The domestic and international consensus has shown signs of fraying as midterm elections loom in the United States and Europeans face the prospect of a cold winter.WASHINGTON — The White House said on Wednesday that it sees no current prospects for negotiations to end the war in Ukraine, even as President Biden faces new challenges keeping together the bipartisan, multinational coalition supporting the effort to drive out Russian invaders.The domestic and international consensus that Mr. Biden has struggled to build has shown signs of fraying in recent days with the approach of midterm elections and a cold European winter. But Mr. Biden’s advisers have concluded that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia remains committed to force and that Ukrainian leaders are unwilling to give ground following recent battlefield victories.“Neither side is in a position to sit down and negotiate,” John F. Kirby, the strategic communications coordinator for the National Security Council, told reporters on Wednesday. “Putin is clearly continuing to prosecute this war in a brutal, violent way,” he said, while the Ukrainians given their momentum “are not in a position where they want to negotiate.”Mr. Kirby emphasized that the Americans will defer to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine while trying to strengthen his position in any negotiations that may eventually occur. “If and when it comes to the table,” Mr. Kirby said, Mr. Zelensky “gets to determine when that is; he gets to determine what success looks like, and he gets to determine what or what he is not willing to negotiate with the Russians.“But we’re just not there yet,” he said.The assessment came a day after a group of House Democratic progressives withdrew a letter to Mr. Biden calling for a revised strategy and broaching the possibility of direct talks with Russia to resolve the conflict. Although the 30 progressives backed off in the face of a backlash within their own party, the restiveness on the left served as a warning sign of fatigue after eight months of war financed in large part by American taxpayer dollars.The emerging erosion of support for the current strategy is more pronounced on the political right. Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, positioned to be the new House speaker if Republicans win the House next month as expected, last week threatened to curb future aid to Ukraine, aligning himself with former President Donald J. Trump and the Fox News host Tucker Carlson.On the other side of the ocean, European allies facing the onset of cold weather with Moscow controlling the fuel spigot see the future course of the conflict with Russia in different ways. Some former Soviet-bloc countries in Eastern Europe want Russia firmly defeated and its troops driven out of all of Ukraine, including Crimea, while countries like Germany, France and Italy believe such a full-scale victory is unrealistic and worry that Washington is not thinking clearly about how the war might end.Even between allies sharing similar views, tensions have risen over energy and defense strategy. President Emmanuel Macron of France and Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany met in Paris on Wednesday to discuss their differences over a French-backed European Union cap on natural gas prices that Germany has resisted even as it subsidizes its citizens’ gas bills.Ratcheting up the pressure further, Mr. Putin on Wednesday for the first time personally claimed that Ukraine was preparing to set off a so-called dirty bomb, repeating unsubstantiated assertions made previously by lower-level Russian officials. American officials once again dismissed the contention, calling it a possible pretext for Russia to escalate its attack on Ukraine.As Russian forces conducted an annual military exercise testing nuclear-capable missiles, the Biden administration imposed sanctions on more than 20 Russian and Moldovan individuals and entities reportedly involved in a Russian scheme to interfere in Moldova’s political system.For Mr. Biden, who has built a broad coalition for his approach at home and abroad, the next few weeks could be pivotal. While the Ukrainian war effort still enjoys wide support in the United States, polling suggests some attrition, especially among Republicans.Twenty percent of Americans interviewed by the Pew Research Center last month said the United States is providing too much help to Ukraine, up from 12 percent in May and 7 percent in March. Thirty-two percent of Republicans said too much was being done for Ukraine, compared with 11 percent of Democrats. About 46 percent of Republicans said the United States was doing about the right amount or not enough, while 65 percent of Democrats agreed.“Unfortunately, what we’re seeing I think is Russian far-right propaganda talking points filtering into the U.S. political environment, and knowingly or unknowingly we see U.S. politicians basically using talking points that will do nothing but bring a big smile to Putin’s face,” said Evelyn Farkas, executive director of the McCain Institute for International Leadership and a former Pentagon official under President Barack Obama..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.White House officials said privately that they had nothing to do with the swift retreat of the Congressional Progressive Caucus that proposed negotiations with Russia, but were reassured by the quick reversal. The increasing Republican skepticism, however, means that a midterm election victory by the opposition would raise questions about future aid packages.Even before Mr. McCarthy’s statement promising to resist a “blank check” for Ukraine, 57 Republicans in the House and 11 in the Senate voted against $40 billion in assistance in May and more of the party’s candidates on the campaign trail have expressed resistance to more money for Ukraine.But other Republicans have been steadfast backers of Ukraine, most notably Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the party’s leader in the upper chamber who pointedly rebuffed Mr. McCarthy’s no-blank-check comment.“We have enjoyed and continue to enjoy terrific bipartisan support for our approach to Ukraine and the kinds of security assistance that we’re providing, and we’re going to need that support going forward,” Mr. Kirby said. “The president’s not worried about that.”Biden allies said Democrats had proved to be self-correcting when it came to the progressives’ letter but urged the president to explain his strategy to the public and the stakes involved.“This is a difficult and dangerous situation that requires staying power and to some extent sacrifice on the part of the United States,” said Representative Tom Malinowski, Democrat of New Jersey and a staunch supporter of Ukraine aid. “It’s always important for the president to be making the case to Congress and to the American people that this is in the national interest and the right thing to do.”Still, as the war grinds on, in Europe it feels more and more like an American venture. American contributions of war matériel and money exceed those of all the other allies put together, and American strategy choices are dominant, aided by the brutality of the Russian war, the bravery of the Ukrainian government and military and Mr. Putin’s clear disinterest in negotiations, let alone a Russian withdrawal.In these European countries, there is quiet worry that Ukraine will do so well as to drive Mr. Putin into a desperate gamble of escalation — a worry not unknown in Washington, too. For the Germans and the French, a settlement along the lines that existed before the Feb. 24 invasion would seem quite sufficient — a defeat for Mr. Putin but not a rout. The fear is that too big a loss of face for Russia would push Mr. Putin into using nuclear weapons in some fashion, or a “dirty bomb” conventional explosive with radioactive material that could be blamed on the Ukrainians in order to justify a significant escalation.That is a major reason that Germany and France seem to be carefully calibrating the sophistication of the weapons they send to Ukraine, as Mr. Biden does too. Europe has pretty much run out of Soviet-era weapons to send to Ukraine, and its own stocks, intended for its own defense, are also low, a function of the post-Cold War “peace benefit” that caused military spending to plummet all over the continent, a trend only slowly being reversed in earnest.There is a significant disparity between the flood of arms supplied by the United States, Britain, and Poland and what the rest of Europe is providing, which has raised the persistent question of whether some countries are slow-walking supplies to bring about a shorter war and quicker negotiations.Taken as a whole, the West is providing Ukraine “just enough” weaponry “to survive, not enough to regain territory,” said Ulrich Speck, a German foreign policy analyst. “The idea seems to be that Russia should not win, but also not lose.“What countries send and how slowly they send it tells us a lot about the war aims of Western countries,” he added. “And it becomes even more important now because Ukraine is more dependent on Western arms.”For all of that, Eric S. Edelman, a counselor at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington and a former under secretary of defense under President George W. Bush, said the Europeans have stuck together more firmly than many had expected.“Public support remains quite strong,” Mr. Edelman said. “And although there will definitely be negative economic effects — particularly in Germany — the Euros have taken a lot of steps to buffer themselves” by storing energy and diversifying supplies. “Putin,” he said, “may find that he has made a bad bet.”Still, he added, “notwithstanding this generally bullish assessment, one should never underestimate the challenges of coalition maintenance and alliance management.”Peter Baker More

  • in

    Deadly Shooting at Israeli Checkpoint Sets Jerusalem on Edge

    Surging violence claimed the lives of four Palestinians and an Israeli soldier over the weekend, raising tensions on the eve of a Jewish holiday.JERUSALEM — Israeli security forces on Sunday said that they were still searching for the gunman who carried out a deadly attack late Saturday at a checkpoint in East Jerusalem and that three Palestinians had been arrested in connection with the shooting.The attack, which left an Israeli soldier dead and a security guard severely wounded, came as tensions surged before the Jewish holiday of Sukkot, when worshipers and pilgrims pour into the city. Israeli forces were put on high alert across the city ahead of the holiday, which begins at sundown on Sunday evening and lasts a week.The attack on Saturday night at the checkpoint near the Shuafat refugee camp, on the northeastern outskirts of Jerusalem, occurred hours after a deadly Israeli arrest raid and armed clashes in the city of Jenin, in the occupied West Bank, during which two Palestinians were killed.The recent spasm of violence gripping Israel and the West Bank is the worst those areas have seen in years. The Israeli military has been carrying out an intensified campaign of arrest raids, particularly in and around the northern West Bank cities of Jenin and Nablus, after a spate of terrorist attacks in Israeli cities that killed 19 people in the spring.The military raids, which take place almost nightly, are often deadly. At least 100 Palestinians have been killed so far this year. The Israeli authorities say that many of those were militants killed during clashes or while trying to perpetrate attacks, but some Palestinian protesters and uninvolved civilians have also been killed.The high death toll in the West Bank has spurred more disaffected Palestinian men to take up arms and try to carry out revenge attacks, according to analysts. The resurgence of loosely formed, armed Palestinian militias in the northern West Bank is increasingly reminiscent of the chaos there during the second intifada, or Palestinian uprising, which broke out in 2000 and lasted more than four years.The new militancy comes after years without any political progress toward a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and is being fueled by splits from and divisions within Fatah, the secular party that controls the Palestinian Authority, the body that administers parts of the West Bank.Israel captured the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 war and then annexed East Jerusalem in a move that was never internationally recognized. The Palestinians claim the West Bank and East Jerusalem as part of a future Palestinian state.Adding to the frictions is Palestinian frustration with the authority’s leaders, who are widely viewed as inept and corrupt, and whose security coordination with the Israeli military is decried by many Palestinians as collaboration with the enemy. Power struggles are also at play, as Palestinian factions jockey for a position to succeed Mahmoud Abbas, the authority’s 87-year-old president.Israeli armored vehicles during a raid on Saturday by the Israeli military at a refugee camp near the West Bank city of Jenin.Alaa Badarneh/EPA, via ShutterstockHamas, the Islamist militant group that dominates the Palestinian coastal enclave of Gaza, and Fatah’s main rival, has been encouraging the armed groups in the West Bank in an effort to destabilize the area. It is expected to continue to do so in the run-up to the Israeli election, which is set to take place on Nov. 1 — the country’s fifth in under four years.The United Nations special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, Tor Wennesland, said in a statement late Saturday that he was “alarmed by the deteriorating security situation,” citing the rise in armed clashes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.“The mounting violence in the occupied West Bank is fueling a climate of fear, hatred and anger,” he said, adding, “It is crucial to reduce tensions immediately to open the space for crucial initiatives aimed at establishing a viable political horizon.”The attack on the checkpoint occurred shortly after 9 p.m. on Saturday, when a man emerged from a vehicle, shot at the security personnel then fled on foot in the direction of the Shuafat refugee camp.The military identified the soldier who was killed, a female member of a combat battalion of the military police, as Sgt. Noa Lazar, 18. She was promoted in rank to sergeant from corporal after her death.The Israeli military raid on the Jenin refugee camp earlier Saturday took place, unusually, in broad daylight. The target, who was eventually arrested, was a member of the Islamic Jihad militant group, according to the military, which also said he had been released from prison in 2020 and had since been involved in shooting attacks against Israeli soldiers.The military said that dozens of Palestinians hurled explosives and fired shots at soldiers during the raid, and that the soldiers responded with live fire.The Palestinian Health Ministry identified the two Palestinians who were killed as Mahmoud al-Sous, 18, and Ahmad Daraghmeh, 16. Two more Palestinian teenagers were killed by Israeli troops in separate incidents in the West Bank the day before.Human rights groups have accused Israel of using excessive force in quelling unrest in the West Bank. Nabil Abu Rudeineh, the spokesman for Mr. Abbas, the Palestinian president, blamed Israel for the escalation and warned that it would push the situation toward “an explosion and a point of no return, which will have devastating consequences for all.”The prime minister of Israel, Yair Lapid, who is running for election against former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said on Sunday that Israel would “not rest” until the “heinous murderers” of Sergeant Lazar were brought to justice. Mr. Netanyahu said he was “holding the hands of the security forces operating in the field.” More

  • in

    ¿El próximo presidente de Colombia está listo para enfrentar la violencia?

    BOGOTÁ — El mes pasado, una organización criminal armada paralizó casi un tercio del norte de Colombia, en buena medida sin resistencia. “A partir de esta fecha se decreta cuatro días de paro armado”, decía un panfleto del 5 de mayo que ordenaba a la gente a que permaneciera en sus casas, cerrara los negocios y vaciara las calles.El Clan del Golfo, un grupo del narcotráfico de corte paramilitar, inició el paro contra el gobierno colombiano en represalia por la captura y extradición a Estados Unidos de su líder, Dairo Antonio Úsuga, conocido como Otoniel. “No nos hacemos responsables de aquellos que no acaten las órdenes”, advertía ominosamente el grupo.Para enfatizar su mensaje, los miembros del Clan del Golfo marcaron paredes con sus iniciales en los centros urbanos, quemaron vehículos y camiones para bloquear carreteras, instalaron puestos de control ilegales y patrullaron los campos en motocicletas. Con poca policía estatal o presencia militar para proteger las zonas rurales, los colombianos en 11 de los 32 departamentos del país acataron las órdenes del grupo y se impuso una quietud fantasmal.Al final de los cuatro días, al menos ocho personas habían muerto, casi 200 vehículos habían sido incinerados y muchos de los tres millones de personas afectadas se estaban quedando sin comida y otros productos básicos.El Clan del Golfo también parece estar incidiendo en la elección presidencial. El grupo emitió amenazas por escrito a los partidarios del candidato de izquierda, Gustavo Petro, y en las zonas rurales donde el recuerdo del paro seguía presente, los líderes comunitarios dijeron que el miedo limitó la participación de los votantes.Pero tal vez porque hay mucho en juego, un porcentaje alto de votantes acudió el 29 de mayo a las urnas para la primera vuelta electoral. Petro obtuvo poco más del 40 por ciento de los 21 millones de votos totales y se enfrentará en la segunda vuelta del 19 de junio a Rodolfo Hernández, un controversial empresario inmobiliario de derecha que hizo una fuerte campaña en TikTok.Aunque ambos candidatos difieren de manera significativa en todos los temas —desde la movilidad social hasta la política exterior— comparten una debilidad: ninguno ha articulado un plan claro para detener el aumento de la amenaza armada y la violencia que afecta a la Colombia rural, como revelan las acciones del Clan del Golfo. Los números de personas desplazadas, la acumulación de asesinatos de líderes sociales y comunitarios y el reclutamiento forzoso de niños, son indicios de que la seguridad se está deteriorando con rapidez.Ni Petro ni Hernández parecen estar preparados para enfrentar los desafíos de las zonas rurales en conflicto. Además de la violencia organizada del Clan del Golfo, alrededor de una decena de otros grupos armados recorren las áreas más vulnerables del país, buscando controlar territorios para establecer rutas lucrativas de tráfico de drogas y otros mercados ilegales.El próximo presidente de Colombia debe alejarse del enfoque actual del gobierno de priorizar las capturas y extradiciones de líderes de organizaciones ilegales, como la que causó el paro armado. Esta estrategia no ha logrado desmantelar a los grupos criminales pero sí ha generado consecuencias profundas para los civiles.En cambio, el nuevo presidente debería centrarse en una política que reoriente a las fuerzas de seguridad de Colombia para proteger a los civiles de los grupos armados, que hoy ejercen una autoridad de facto en muchas partes del país. Esto, sumado a la implementación de programas sociales y una inversión sustancial en el campo, puede ayudar a cambiar el rumbo y pavimentar el camino hacia la paz.La policía colombiana escoltó a Dairo Antonio Úsuga, líder del Clan del Golfo, cuando fue extraditado a Estados Unidos en mayo.Prensa Presidencial/Agence France-Presse vía Getty ImagesEl acuerdo de paz, firmado en 2016 entre el Estado y las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), ha logrado reducir en buena medida la violencia rural. Pero algunas regiones, como Montes de María, donde los grupos armados están tomando el control de enormes territorios —incluidas grandes áreas que las FARC solían controlar—, son un buen anticipo de la situación que enfrentará el candidato que gane la elección.Cuando visité Montes de María en marzo, me quedó claro que esta región agrícola, rica en recursos, estaba en crisis. El Clan del Golfo ha expandido agresivamente su presencia desde la firma del acuerdo de paz, reclamando rutas de tráfico e imponiendo el cobro de pagos de protección a la población. Este grupo armado —como casi todos los que hoy operan en el país— evita los enfrentamientos con los militares. Su objetivo no es tomar poder en Bogotá, sino sacar ganancias de las tierras y de su gente.Se suponía que esto no debería suceder. El acuerdo de paz con las FARC eliminaría las desigualdades que habían empoderado a las guerrillas y a los narcotraficantes. Prometía ayudar a los agricultores pobres que cultivaban coca, la materia prima de la cocaína, a abandonar un medio de vida que los exponía a la violencia. Cerca de 100.000 familias se apuntaron y arrancaron voluntariamente sus cultivos de coca.No obstante, el gobierno actual, encabezado por el presidente Iván Duque, llegó al poder en 2018 argumentando que el acuerdo de paz era demasiado indulgente con las FARC, y se ha enfocado en las partes del acuerdo afines a sus intereses políticos —como la desmovilización de excombatientes y el gasto en infraestructura— mientras que otras promesas, como abordar la desigualdad en la posesión de tierras y el respaldo a la sustitución de cultivos de coca, quedaron en el olvido.Al mismo tiempo, decenas de grupos armados, como el Clan del Golfo, han mostrado ser más ágiles, tenaces y económicamente habilidosos para aprovechar las oportunidades que ofreció el desmantelamiento de las FARC.Al interior del país, hombres armados reclutan a la fuerza a niños para engrosar sus filas, sacándolos de sus hogares y escuelas. Otros adultos jóvenes se unen por su cuenta porque, sin posibilidades de educación o trabajo, el conflicto es el único empleo disponible. En el sur de Córdoba, el Clan del Golfo se promueve como “la única empresa que tiene las puertas siempre abiertas”.La élite política colombiana considera, erróneamente, que estas amenazas están desvinculadas de la desesperación social y económica que viven muchos colombianos. Es más fácil culpar de los disturbios a otros enemigos, ya sea Venezuela, las guerrillas de izquierda o los rivales políticos. Y, de hecho, en lugar de solucionar esta situación, la respuesta más común del gobierno ha sido desplegar el ejército.Los soldados enviados para acabar con la inestabilidad saben que este enfoque no está funcionando. “Aquí no hay una solución militar”, me dijo un comandante de una brigada militar en una de las zonas de conflicto más ríspidas de Colombia, sugiriendo que lo que se necesitaba era inversión social.Por ahora, muchas de las fuerzas del gobierno están enfocadas en la erradicación forzosa de la coca, eliminando los cultivos que luego se vuelven a sembrar en tasas que, se calcula, llegan al 50 y 67 por ciento. La estrategia de las fuerzas armadas de matar y capturar a miembros de los grupos armados deriva en el reemplazo inmediato de esas bajas con nuevos reclutas.En pocas palabras, la estrategia inadecuada del gobierno colombiano en las zonas remotas es parcialmente culpable del resurgimiento de la violencia. Los candidatos presidenciales tienen la oportunidad de cambiar de rumbo.Es alentador que tanto Petro como Hernández han dicho que implementarán el acuerdo de paz de 2016, que el gobierno de Duque ha descuidado en muchos puntos. Sin embargo, ninguno de los dos ha presentado un plan claro sobre cómo gestionar el deterioro de la situación de seguridad de los ciudadanos de a pie.Petro, quien en el pasado fue parte de una organización guerrillera, se comprometió a iniciar un diálogo con los grupos armados e implementar la desmovilización de grupos del crimen organizado, como el Clan del Golfo. Hernández, por su parte, ha sugerido agregar al Ejército de Liberación Nacional (ELN) al acuerdo firmado con las FARC.Aunque en estas ideas hay algunos elementos que podrían funcionar, la mejor manera de abordar la crisis es proteger a los colombianos que viven en el epicentro del conflicto, con mejores servicios policiales, oportunidades económicas y razones concretas que les permita confiar en el gobierno.Una presión puntual de Washington puede ayudar. La reciente declaración del gobierno de Biden que destaca al acuerdo de paz es importante pero ha sido socavada por sus acciones. Los dólares estadounidenses se gastan de manera desproporcionada en enfoques de mano dura, como la erradicación forzosa de la coca, que no contribuyen mucho a resolver el problema y exacerban la desconfianza en el gobierno.La zozobra que aún acecha en las calles del norte de Colombia está avanzando demasiado rápido y lejos como para ignorarla. Los candidatos y los votantes urbanos que ignoran estos desafíos lo hacen bajo su propio riesgo. Lo que está en juego en las elecciones se extiende al futuro de un conflicto que se suponía que había terminado pero que, más bien, se está reavivando.Colombia, que ya había empezado a acabar con un conflicto armado, no debería permitir que vuelva a estallar.Elizabeth Dickinson (@dickinsonbeth) es analista sénior del International Crisis Group para Colombia, con sede en Bogotá. Antes de unirse a la organización en 2017, trabajó durante una década como periodista. More