United States International Relations

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Use Israel Attack to Stoke Fears About U.S.-Mexico Border

      by

      G.O.P. lawmakers and candidates regularly invoke record-high border crossings to address a range of issues, including crime and jobs.Crime in American cities. The national opioid crisis. Election integrity. And now a terror attack considered the deadliest day for Jews in Israel’s 75-year history.Not long after Hamas terrorists killed and kidnapped hundreds of Israelis this month, a wave of Republicans — on the presidential campaign trail, in state and congressional races and in the far-right corners of conservative media — reached for a familiar playbook: tying the issue to the nation’s southern border.“What happened to Israel could happen to America because our country has been invaded by millions of people from over 160 different countries,” Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia said on Fox News more than 24 hours after the attack.“We know that there’s an open border, and I know that the biggest national security threat is if those terrorists come into America, and we have another 9/11,” Nikki Haley, a former United Nations ambassador under former President Donald J. Trump, told reporters last week in Concord, N.H.“You cannot forget that the same people that attacked Israel are right now pouring at levels that nobody can believe into our beautiful U.S.A. through our totally open border,” Mr. Trump said on Monday, a baseless claim that was met with applause at a campaign event in Clive, Iowa, a Des Moines suburb.While Republicans are otherwise reckoning with deep divisions, the remarkable unity on this front underscores the degree to which the 2,000-mile dividing line between the United States and Mexico remains a potent political symbol for the party. Since Mr. Trump paved his way to power on a nativist and hard-line approach to immigration, Republicans have invoked fortifying the border to address nearly every issue, in increasingly militant terms and often exaggerating the facts.There are some indications that message is resonating. A national NBC News poll taken in September suggests that voters overwhelming trust Republicans over Democrats when it comes to handling the economy and crime — as well as immigration — heading into the 2024 election.Alex Conant, a Republican strategist and a former adviser to Senator Marco Rubio, said the aggressive turns toward the border could be particularly effective now as the Biden administration grapples with two very real humanitarian crises: record numbers of migrants trying to cross the border and a fight against fentanyl that has become an urgent public health problem.“The border is something that concerns a majority of Americans, especially when you can tie it to problems they see in their own neighborhoods,” he said.After Donald J. Trump won the presidency on a hard-line approach to immigration, Republicans have tied border policies to countless other issues.Rachel Mummey for The New York TimesHomeland Security officials have said they have found no specific or credible threat to the United States tied to Hamas. Andrew Bates, a White House spokesman, responded to Republicans in part by saying there is “strict national security vetting to determine whether individuals coming from anywhere in the world have ties to terrorist organizations.” Immigration experts said that the government cannot screen people who enter undetected but that the large numbers of migrants turning themselves in at the border are subjected to screening processes.Since the southern border was drawn, American politicians have sought to wring political advantage by tapping into xenophobic fears, at times aimed at Chinese laborers, or young German men believed to be spies, or Jews and Catholics, historians and political analysts said.Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera, a government professor at George Mason University in Virginia and who tracked the rise of the Mexican criminal organization Los Zetas, said the latest Republican rhetoric took cues from three distinct moments in U.S. history: the migration of Mexican laborers who became the economic engine of the Southwest, the government’s war on drugs that began in the 1970s, and the 9/11 terror attack and the so-called war on terror. All resulted in an increased military presence at the border, the building of physical barriers and an expansion of the U.S. deportation system.Ms. Correa-Cabrera said that, much like now, those earliest border enforcement measures were mostly based on political arguments, not data that migrants increased crime or posed a greater threat to public safety. Many studies have shown this is not the case. “It had to do with prejudice,” she said.Attempts by politicians to link Mideast terror groups and Mexican criminal organizations have at times gained traction over the past two decades, but no substantial evidence has surfaced to support the claim, counterterrorism and insurgency experts said. The two kinds of groups have vastly different objectives and operate in cultural and economic borderland regions that do not share remotely similar dynamics.With apprehensions at the southern border up overall, U.S. officials this year have recorded an increase in apprehensions of people whose identities match those on the F.B.I. terrorist watch list — 160 migrants in the 2023 fiscal year as of July, up from 100 the fiscal year before, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Such rolls constitute a small fraction of the millions of people seeking to cross the southern border and do not significantly measure the terror threat against the United States, terrorism and insurgency experts said. The uptick may be owing in part to the broad nature of the lists, they added, ensnaring people wanted for terrorist activities against their home countries but not aimed at the United States, as well as relatives or associates not accused of wrongdoing. Although experts do not completely rule out the threat of a terror attack launched from the southern border, they described it as unlikely.If Mideast terror organizations ever did plan an attack, “the northern border may even be more vulnerable,” said Bruce Hoffman, professor and director of the Center for Jewish Civilization at Georgetown University who specializes in terrorism studies. And such a plot would not necessarily be connected to illegal immigration, he added.The 9/11 hijackers entered the United States on tourist, business and student visas. The last man to physically cross the border with materials for an explosive — Ahmed Ressam — was arrested in 1999 after he came in from Canada.Still, the southern border remains a powerful symbol, for politicians and voters. When Mr. Trump adopted his “America First” slogan during his 2016 presidential campaign, he used it to harness grievance, xenophobia and fears about threats from abroad, economic competition from China on trade, and the potential economic and social consequences of increases in new immigrants.On Monday, Mr. Trump, under fire for his criticism of Israel and for calling Hezbollah, the Iran-backed terrorist organization, “very smart,” invoked the deadly Hamas attacks on the Jewish state to stoke fears of terrorism at home. Returning to some of his most inflammatory themes on illegal immigration, he also took aim at legal pathways by pledging to reinstitute the travel ban from Muslim-majority countries and expand the freeze on refugees he enacted during his presidency.“We aren’t bringing anyone from Gaza,” he said at his rally in Clive.Mr. Trump is not alone. Republican candidates like Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida often steer conversations with voters back to immigration. At a town hall in Iowa in August, when he was asked two questions in quick succession on unrelated issues, Mr. DeSantis managed to hit on the border. On the issue of eminent domain, he said he would support it “for the border wall down south.” Asked about the war in Ukraine, he said that as president, his “first obligation” would be “to protect the American people and to protect our border.”In mailers, television ads and remarks, Republicans in state and congressional races regularly fault border enforcement. They cast blame on Mexican criminal organizations and undocumented immigrants for the fentanyl crisis — but not the American pharmaceutical companies that fueled the legal market for the drugs or the U.S. citizens who law enforcement officials say typically bring the harder narcotics across the border. They have claimed without basis that unauthorized immigrants are gaining access to the ballot box, while claims that widespread numbers of undocumented immigrants are voting have been consistently discredited.Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene quickly invoked the U.S.-Mexico border after the attack in Israel.Haiyun Jiang for The New York TimesHistorians and political analysts warned that much of the heated language on immigration plays into far right and sometimes explicitly racist tropes that fuel fear with the potential for violence.Two white supremacist shooting suspects in the last five years, Robert Bowers in Pittsburgh and Patrick Crusius in El Paso, Texas, cited “invaders” and a “Hispanic invasion” in the lead-up to their crimes.On Saturday, the authorities in suburban Chicago said, Joseph Czuba, 71, fatally stabbed a 6-year-old boy and seriously wounded the child’s mother because of their Palestinian background. Officials tied the attack to what Mr. Czuba was hearing on conservative talk radio about the fighting overseas.Nicholas Nehamas More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Biden Walks a Tightrope on Israel-Gaza as Democratic Tensions Smolder

      by

      The president has won bipartisan plaudits for his response to the war, and his trip to Israel offers a chance to appear statesmanlike. But anger on the left is growing as Israeli strikes pound Gaza.As President Biden visits Tel Aviv on Wednesday to demonstrate American solidarity with Israel amid escalating violence after the deadliest attack it has faced in 50 years, Democratic rifts over the conflict are beginning to tear open, leaving him presiding over a party struggling to resolve where it stands.The president’s trip, and his broader handling of the war, have presented him with both political risks and a chance to pump energy into a re-election bid that Democratic voters have been slow to embrace.Mr. Biden’s steadfast support for Israel after the Hamas attack, by far the dominant position in Washington, has won him plaudits from some Republicans as well as Democrats. An international crisis, even with its grave geopolitical dangers, is relatively comfortable political terrain for a president with deep foreign policy experience.While international issues rarely drive American elections, Mr. Biden and his allies will see playing the role of statesman abroad — especially if he can help calm the soaring tensions — as a welcome change from a wide range of domestic challenges dragging down his approval ratings.In Tel Aviv, Mr. Biden again offered a full endorsement of Israel while making his most explicit warning yet to its leaders, telling them not to be “consumed” by rage after the Hamas attack. For the first time, the president offered money for displaced Palestinians and cautioned that the United States made mistakes responding to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that Israel should not repeat.At the same time, creeping anger within his party’s left is threatening to grow as Israel pummels Gaza with airstrikes and moves toward a potential ground invasion, with progressive Democrats accusing Mr. Biden of abetting a war that has already killed thousands of Palestinians.Those emotions flared on Tuesday after a deadly explosion at a Gaza City hospital, with Israeli and Gazan officials blaming each other for the blast. Protests erupted across the Middle East, a planned stop by Mr. Biden in Jordan was canceled and American politicians rushed to criticize the president even before the fog of war had settled.An Israeli soldier near Urim, Israel, on Tuesday. The country’s military is preparing for a potential ground invasion of Gaza.Tamir Kalifa for The New York TimesThe anger and confusion made clear just how precarious of a tightrope Mr. Biden is walking.“This is delicate for him,” said Representative Jasmine Crockett of Texas, a progressive Democrat who visited Israel with a congressional delegation this summer. “It’s a very fine line to walk and it’s one that a lot of us as members, especially progressive members, find ourselves having to try to balance.”While Republicans who have offered surprising praise for Mr. Biden’s response to the Hamas attack have largely cast the conflict as a black-and-white issue, things are more complicated among the progressive base of the Democratic Party.Large segments of Democratic voters, especially younger ones, are skeptical if not hostile to Israeli policy toward the Palestinians and are disinclined to support a war, even in response to a Hamas attack that killed more than 1,400 Israelis.The discontent has been evident in two documents in recent days. The first, a letter signed by 55 progressive members of Congress on Friday, called for the restoration of food, water, fuel and other supplies Israel had cut off to Gaza. Another, a House resolution with just 13 Democrats as co-authors, demanded “an immediate de-escalation and cease-fire in Israel and occupied Palestine.”Representative Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, who signed the letter but not the cease-fire resolution, said he had received more calls from constituents in his Madison-based district who were worried about Israel’s expected military response to the Hamas attack than about the initial assault itself.Mr. Pocan said he had explained to people that Mr. Biden and his top aides, including Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, were privately pressing Israel to do more to spare Palestinian lives than they were expressing in public.“We ask people to kind of trust some of us who are saying and doing the right thing,” Mr. Pocan said in an interview on Tuesday. “I know how Joe Biden operates. He’s probably saying some things privately that are important and respectful of civilians. He may not broadcast everything on his sleeve. People just have to understand that that’s Joe Biden. He’s not encouraging the indiscriminate bombing.”But some Democrats warned that if Mr. Biden tethers himself too closely to Israel, he will get blamed if many of the party’s voters come to believe that Israel responded to Hamas with too much force.Representative Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, the only Palestinian American in Congress, who was one of the 13 Democrats who signed the cease-fire resolution, was among the first in her party to blame Mr. Biden directly for war deaths after the Gaza hospital explosion.“This is what happens when you refuse to facilitate a ceasefire & help de-escalate,” she wrote on social media Tuesday. “Your war and destruction only approach has opened my eyes and many Palestinian Americans and Muslims Americans like me. We will remember where you stood.”Mark Mellman, the founder and president of Democratic Majority for Israel, dismissed the idea that Mr. Biden was risking a crackup in his electoral coalition. If anything, Mr. Mellman said, Mr. Biden was demonstrating his dynamism to voters who have questioned his age and ability to serve in office.“It shows a level of vigor, it shows a level of engagement,” he said. “It demonstrates unparalleled diplomatic competence.”Polls show that Americans are more confident in Mr. Biden’s ability to lead the country through the Israel conflict than on domestic issues.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesWhile Mr. Biden’s re-election campaign has not yet sent fund-raising appeals based on his actions in response to the Israel conflict, the pageantry of his trip won’t be lost on officials at the operation’s headquarters in Delaware. After Mr. Biden visited Ukraine, his campaign produced a gauzy advertisement titled “War Zone.”The White House believes Mr. Biden is acting with broad support from the American people in defending Israel. Officials think that those protesting Mr. Biden’s position are not representative of much of the electorate — and that Democrats are hardly likely to abandon Mr. Biden if it means helping former President Donald J. Trump.While Mr. Biden, in an interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes” on Sunday, agreed with Israel’s aim of eradicating Hamas, he said the group was not representative of the Palestinian people. Mr. Blinken said on Tuesday that the United States and Israel had agreed to a plan to enable humanitarian aid to reach Gazan civilians.“It is critical that aid begin flowing into Gaza as soon as possible,” Mr. Blinken said.Among progressives, there is some hope that Mr. Biden’s trip to Israel will serve to de-escalate the conflict just as it appears poised to explode.Larry Cohen, the chairman of Our Revolution, a left-wing political organization that grew from Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign, said he hoped the visit would do so.“In this moment, the U.S. role potentially helps Palestinians as well,” said Mr. Cohen, whose work in the region dates to a meeting with Yasir Arafat three decades ago to help support workers trying to organize a union in the West Bank. “I believe that Biden is going there in part to try to stop a slaughter in Gaza as well as to express horror at the Hamas murders.”Polls show Americans are more confident in Mr. Biden’s ability to lead the country through the Israel conflict than on domestic issues.A Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday found that 76 percent of voters thought supporting Israel was in the U.S. national interest. The survey found that 42 percent approved of Mr. Biden’s handling of the Israel conflict, compared with 37 percent who disapproved — an improvement on his overall approval rating, which the poll found was 38 percent.Younger and more activist progressive Democrats seem less inclined to give Mr. Biden the benefit of the doubt. Quinnipiac found that a majority of voters 18 to 34 years old were opposed to sending weapons and military equipment to Israel.Waleed Shahid, a strategist who used to work for Justice Democrats, a group that sponsored left-wing primary challenges to Democratic members of Congress, said Mr. Biden’s embrace of Israel might drive young Muslim and progressive voters away from Mr. Biden and toward Cornel West, the independent candidate for president who is running on a more explicitly antiwar platform.“I have heard from several people in my life, people who worked for Biden in 2020, Jews and Arabs, who just from an ethical perspective don’t feel great about returning to campaign for him,” Mr. Shahid said.On Tuesday in Arizona, Vice President Kamala Harris was greeted with jeers from college students after delivering the Biden administration’s talking points about how both Israelis and Palestinians “deserve peace, deserve self-determination and deserve safety.”One student yelled, “Stop making bombs.”Ruth Igielnik More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Venezuela Pledges Small Steps Toward Fair Elections Next Year

      by

      The agreement signed on Tuesday by the country’s authoritarian government and the opposition would not allow all candidates to run.The government of President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela and the country’s opposition resumed talks on Tuesday designed to move toward free and fair elections, though the agreement that was announced fell short of what human rights activists and the U.S. government are ultimately seeking.Hopes were high that, as part of the agreement, Mr. Maduro would allow opposition candidates already disqualified by his government to participate in the 2024 presidential vote in exchange for the lifting of sanctions on Venezuela’s vital oil industry.Doing so would be a critical move toward a credible race, given that the front-runner in an opposition primary election set for Sunday, María Corina Machado, is barred from running in the general election.But the agreements signed on Tuesday, during a ceremony on the Caribbean island of Barbados, were vague. While they included commitments to allow international election observers and access to the news media in 2024, there were few other concrete promises. Experts say it is unlikely that the United States will fully lift sanctions if Ms. Machado is not allowed to run.“We are going toward the supreme objective of lifting the sanctions,” said Jorge Rodríguez, the president of Venezuela’s legislature, at the ceremony. But “if you received an administrative disqualification,” he added, “then you cannot be a candidate.”Even before an official announcement, some Venezuela experts expressed skepticism that the agreement would lead to real political change.“It’s a minimalist deal that will not lead to free and fair elections,” said Phil Gunson, an analyst with International Crisis Group who lives in the country’s capital, Caracas. But he said, it “is the best available in the circumstances. It allows Maduro to hang on to power unless something really dramatic happens. Baby steps, really.”He added, “The Maduro government has a history of failing to abide by agreements it signs.”Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, in a joint statement with his British, Canadian and E.U. counterparts, welcomed the agreement as a “necessary step” in the “restoration of democracy in Venezuela.”“We continue to call for the unconditional release of all those unjustly detained, the independence of the electoral process and judicial institutions, freedom of expression including for members of the press, and respect for human and political rights,” the statement added.Mr. Maduro came to power in 2013, after the death of President Hugo Chávez, the founder of the country’s socialist-inspired revolution. Under Mr. Maduro, Venezuela, once among the richest countries in Latin America, has witnessed an extraordinary economic decline, leading to a humanitarian crisis that has caused widespread migration.President Nicolás Maduro claimed victory in a 2018 election widely viewed as fraudulent and that led to stricter U.S. sanctions.Meridith Kohut for The New York TimesMore than seven million Venezuelans have fled the country of roughly 28 million people, and in recent years, hundreds of thousands have begun trekking by foot to the United States.Mr. Maduro claimed victory in a 2018 election widely viewed as fraudulent. In response, the U.S. government significantly tightened sanctions on the country’s oil industry, Venezuela’s key source of revenue, a move that exacerbated the economic crisis and isolated Mr. Maduro from much of the world.To help the economy, Mr. Maduro needs sanctions to be lifted. At the same time, the opposition wants him to set competitive conditions for the next presidential election that would give it a legitimate shot at winning.The two sides, however, have been at an impasse over how to achieve these goals, and Mr. Maduro has seemed unwilling to do anything he believes would risk his grip on power.In November, as a sign of its openness to lifting sanctions in exchange for ensuring fair elections, the United States granted the oil company Chevron a license for a limited expansion of energy operations in Venezuela, a small step toward the country’s possible re-entry into the international oil market.The Biden administration is under pressure to ensure that oil prices remain stable going into next year’s presidential election. The threat of a broader conflict in the Middle East combined with ongoing disruptions to Russian energy exports threaten to fan another episode of inflation and potentially cause gasoline prices to rise in the coming months.But even after lifting sanctions, it would still take years and billions of dollars of investment to increase oil production enough to lower prices, said Francisco Monaldi, an expert on Venezuelan energy at Rice University in Houston.He said the Biden administration was most likely motivated more by trying to stem the flow of Venezuelan migrants to the U.S.-Mexico border than by driving down oil prices in the short term.Mr. Maduro’s government is being investigated by the International Criminal Court for possible crimes against humanity committed since 2017, including torture and persecution on political grounds.Isayen Herrera More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Gobierno de Venezuela y oposición firman un acuerdo

      by

      El acuerdo firmado el martes por el gobierno autoritario del país y la oposición no permitiría que todos los candidatos puedan postularse.El gobierno del presidente venezolano Nicolás Maduro, y la oposición del país, reanudaron el martes las conversaciones para avanzar hacia unas elecciones libres y justas, aunque el acuerdo que se anunció tiene limitaciones en los temas que los activistas de derechos humanos y el gobierno de Estados Unidos buscan en última instancia.Había esperanzas de que, como parte del acuerdo, Maduro permitiera que los candidatos de la oposición que han sido inhabilitados por su gobierno participen en las elecciones presidenciales de 2024, a cambio del levantamiento de las sanciones impuestas a la vital industria petrolera venezolana.Esto sería un paso fundamental hacia una contienda creíble porque a María Corina Machado, la candidata favorita de las elecciones primarias de la oposición que se realizarán el domingo, le prohibieron postularse a las elecciones generales.El acuerdo firmado el martes, durante una ceremonia en la isla caribeña de Barbados, es vago. Aunque incluye el compromiso de permitir la presencia de observadores electorales internacionales y el acceso a los medios de comunicación en 2024, hace pocas promesas concretas. Los expertos afirman que es poco probable que Estados Unidos levante las sanciones si no se permite que Machado se postule a las elecciones.“Vamos hacia el objetivo supremo de levantamiento de las sanciones”, dijo Jorge Rodríguez, presidente de la Asamblea Nacional de Venezuela, en la ceremonia. Y agregó: “Si usted recibió una inhabilitación administrativa por el órgano que le corresponde, desde el punto de vista constitucional legal, que es la Contraloría General de la República, pues tampoco puede ser candidato”.Incluso antes de un anuncio oficial, algunos expertos en Venezuela expresaron su escepticismo de que el acuerdo lograra un cambio político real.“Es un acuerdo minimalista que no logrará unas elecciones libres y justas”, dijo Phil Gunson, analista del International Crisis Group que vive en Caracas, la capital del país. Pero “es lo mejor que hay en estas circunstancias. Le permite a Maduro aferrarse al poder, a menos que ocurra algo realmente dramático. En realidad, son pequeños pasos”.Y añadió: “El gobierno de Maduro tiene un historial de incumplimiento de los acuerdos que firma”.Maduro llegó al poder en 2013, tras la muerte del presidente Hugo Chávez, el fundador de la revolución de inspiración socialista que ha gobernado el país. Bajo el mandato de Maduro, Venezuela, que fue uno de los países más ricos de América Latina, ha experimentado un declive económico extraordinario, generando una crisis humanitaria que ha provocado una migración masiva.El presidente Nicolás Maduro reclamó la victoria en unas elecciones de 2018 ampliamente consideradas fraudulentas y que originaron sanciones más estrictas por parte de Estados Unidos.Meridith Kohut para The New York TimesMás de siete millones de venezolanos han huido del país, cuya población es de unos 28 millones de habitantes. Además, en los últimos años, cientos de miles de personas han emprendido el viaje hacia Estados Unidos a pie.En 2018, Maduro se declaró vencedor en unas elecciones ampliamente consideradas como fraudulentas. En respuesta, el gobierno de Estados Unidos endureció significativamente las sanciones contra la industria petrolera del país, la principal fuente de ingresos de Venezuela, una medida que exacerbó la crisis económica y aisló a Maduro de gran parte del mundo.Para mejorar la economía, Maduro necesita que se levanten las sanciones. Al mismo tiempo, la oposición quiere que establezca condiciones competitivas para las próximas elecciones presidenciales con el fin de tener una oportunidad legítima de ganar.Sin embargo, ambas partes no han logrado estos objetivos, y pareciera que Maduro no está dispuesto a hacer nada que crea que puede poner en riesgo su control sobre el poder.En noviembre, como señal de su disposición a levantar las sanciones a cambio de garantizar unas elecciones justas, Estados Unidos concedió a la petrolera Chevron una licencia para una expansión limitada de las operaciones energéticas en Venezuela, un avance modesto hacia la posible reincorporación del país al mercado petrolero internacional.El gobierno de Biden se encuentra bajo presión para garantizar que los precios del petróleo se mantengan estables de cara a las elecciones presidenciales del próximo año. La amenaza de un conflicto más amplio en Medio Oriente, aunada a las actuales interrupciones de las exportaciones energéticas rusas, amenazan con avivar otro episodio de inflación y provocar una potencial subida de los precios de la gasolina en los próximos meses.Pero, incluso después de levantar las sanciones, se necesitarían años y miles de millones de dólares de inversión para aumentar la producción de petróleo lo suficiente como para bajar los precios, dijo Francisco Monaldi, experto en energía venezolana de la Universidad Rice en Houston.Monaldi cree que lo más probable es que el gobierno de Biden centre sus motivaciones en tratar de frenar el flujo de migrantes venezolanos hacia la frontera entre Estados Unidos y México, en vez de hacer bajar los precios del petróleo a corto plazo.El gobierno de Maduro está siendo investigado por la Corte Penal Internacional por posibles crímenes de lesa humanidad cometidos desde 2017, lo que incluye torturas y persecuciones por motivos políticos.Isayen Herrera More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Hundreds of Thousands Flee Northern Gaza, and More

      by

      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 — it’s 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 10 minutes. Hosted by Annie Correal, the new morning show features three top stories from reporters across the newsroom and around the world, so you always have a sense of what’s happening, even if you only have a few minutes to spare.Ahead of an anticipated ground invasion, hospitals in Gaza City said they had no way to evacuate thousands of sick and injured patients.Samar Abu Elouf for The New York TimesOn Today’s Episode:Gaza’s Hospitals Face ‘Impossible’ Choices With Israel Evacuation Order, with Raja AbdulrahimAs Israeli Invasion Looms, Diplomats Seek to Meet Gaza’s Dire Human NeedsInside Trump’s Backroom Effort to Lock Up the Nomination, with Shane GoldmacherEli Cohen More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      DeSantis and Haley Diverge on Help for Gaza Refugees

      by

      The two Republican candidates appeared to diverge on attitudes toward civilians in the Gaza Strip who are bracing for an invasion by Israel.The deepening humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip is driving a wedge between Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley, two of the leading Republican presidential candidates, who deviated sharply on Sunday over whether the United States should help Palestinian refugees from the region ahead of an expected Israeli invasion.In an appearance on the CBS morning show “Face the Nation,” Mr. DeSantis, the Florida governor, doubled down on remarks he had made one day earlier in Iowa, espousing a hard-line opposition toward helping civilians who have been thrust into the middle of the conflict.“They teach kids to hate Jews,” he said. “The textbooks do not have Israel even on the map. They prepare very young kids to commit terrorist attacks. So I think it’s a toxic culture.”Ms. Haley, the former United Nations ambassador under President Donald J. Trump, pushed back against that view during a CNN interview on Sunday with Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.”“America has always been sympathetic to the fact that you can separate civilians from terrorists,” she said after being shown a clip of Mr. DeSantis’s initial comments on Saturday.Nearly one million people are grappling with shortages of food, clean water and shelter in Gaza, which is bracing for a land invasion by Israel in retaliation for the Oct. 7 attacks and the taking of hostages by Hamas, an Iran-backed militant group.Mr. DeSantis argued on Sunday that it would be detrimental to the United States to “import” large numbers of refugees and would fuel antisemitism, echoing comments he made about people in Gaza the day before that drew scrutiny.At a campaign event on Saturday, Mr. DeSantis said, “If you look at how they behave, not all of them are Hamas, but they are all antisemitic. None of them believe in Israel’s right to exist.”He added: “The Arab states should be taking them. If you have refugees, you don’t fly people in and take them into the United States of America.”When the CBS anchor Margaret Brennan pointed out to Mr. DeSantis that Arabs are Semites and replayed his remarks, he stood by his words.Nikki Haley, former South Carolina governor at the First in the Nation Leadersip Summit in Nashua, New Hampshire on Friday.John Tully for The New York TimesGovernor Ron DeSantis of Florida at the First in the Nation Leadership Summit in Nashua, New Hampshire on Friday.John Tully for The New York Times“There was a lot of celebrating of those attacks in the Gaza Strip by a lot of those folks who were not Hamas,” he said.Ms. Brennan suggested that it was a remote possibility that refugees from Gaza could resettle in the United States, saying that they could not even evacuate from their immediate area. Still, Republicans have used the broader conflict to frame their postures on military action and humanitarian aid.In the House, Representatives Tom Tiffany of Wisconsin and Andy Ogles of Tennessee, both Republicans, have announced that they plan to introduce a bill they say would block the Biden administration from issuing visas to Palestinian passport holders.Mr. DeSantis, who served in the Navy’s Judge Advocate General Corps in Iraq, was also asked whether he would advise the Israeli military to stop their attacks on the infrastructure that provides water and electricity to Gaza.“I don’t think they’re under an obligation to be providing water and these utilities while the hostages are being held,” he said.Ms. Haley struck a more sympathetic chord earlier on Sunday, saying that large percentages of Palestinians and Iranians did not support the violence being perpetrated against one another.“There are so many of these people who want to be free from this terrorist rule,” she said.While the Republican candidates have expressed solidarity with Israel in the wake of the Hamas attacks, they have also clashed with each other over who is most loyal to Israel, America’s closest Middle East ally, and what the role of the United States should be in conflicts overseas.Ms. Haley on Sunday continued to condemn Mr. Trump, her former boss and the Republican front-runner, for referring to Hezbollah, the Iran-backed militant group, as “very smart” while criticizing Israel’s prime minister and Israeli intelligence. She accused Mr. Trump of emboldening U.S. adversaries and drawing attention to himself.“You don’t go and compliment any of them because what that does is that makes America look weak,” she said on CNN, adding: “This isn’t about Trump. It’s not about him.”A spokesman for the Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Sunday.Ms. Haley also leveled fresh criticism toward President Biden, saying that he should never have agreed to free up $6 billion in frozen oil revenue money for Iran for humanitarian purposes as part of a hostage release deal that was announced in August.Facing blowback over the money’s release, the Biden administration and Qatar agreed last week to deny Iran access to the funds, which White House officials had said had not been spent.“You empowered Iran to go and strengthen Hamas, strengthen Hezbollah, strengthen the Houthis to spread their terrorist activity,” Ms. Haley said.The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Sunday.Haley Johnson More

    • 100 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Has Support for Ukraine Peaked? Some Fear So.

      by

      The war in the Middle East, anxiety about the commitment of the U.S., and divisions in Europe are worrying Kyiv that aid from the West may wane.Clearly anxious, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine went in person this week to see NATO defense ministers in Brussels, worried that the war between Israel and Hamas will divert attention — and needed weapons — from Ukraine’s long and bloody struggle against the Russian invasion.American and NATO officials moved to reassure Mr. Zelensky, pledging another $2 billion in immediate military aid. But even before the war in the Mideast began last week, there was a strong sense in Europe, watching Washington, that the world had reached “peak Ukraine” — that support for Kyiv’s fight against Russia’s invasion would never again be as high as it was a few months ago.The new run for the White House by former President Donald J. Trump is shaking confidence that Washington will continue large-scale support for Ukraine. But the concern, Europeans say, is larger than Mr. Trump and extends to much of his Republican Party, which has made cutting support for Ukraine a litmus test of conservative credibility.Even in Europe, Ukraine is an increasingly divisive issue. Voters in Slovakia handed a victory to Robert Fico, a former prime minister sympathetic to Russia. A vicious election campaign in Poland, one of Ukraine’s staunchest allies, has emphasized strains with Kyiv. A far right opposed to aiding Ukraine’s war effort has surged in Germany, where Chancellor Olaf Scholz is struggling to win voters over to his call for a stronger military.“I’m pessimistic,” said Yelyzaveta Yasko, a Ukrainian member of Parliament who is on the foreign affairs committee. “There are many questions now — weapons production, security infrastructure, economic aid, the future of NATO,” she said, but noted that answers to those questions had a timeline of at least five years.President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, right, talking with Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III on Wednesday at a NATO meeting in Brussels.Olivier Matthys/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images“We have been fighting for 600 days,” she added, “and I don’t see the leadership and planning that is required to take real action — not just statements — in support of Ukraine.”Even more depressing, Ms. Yasko said at a recent security forum in Warsaw, is the way domestic politics are “instrumentalizing Ukraine.”“Opinion polls show the people still support Ukraine,” she said, “but politicians start to use Ukraine as a topic to fight each other, and Ukraine becomes a victim.”“I’m worried,” she continued. “I don’t like the way my country is used as a tool.”The previous bipartisan support for Ukraine in the United States no longer seems to hold. “There’s less pushback against the anti-Ukrainian stuff already out there,” said Toomas Hendrik Ilves, the former president of Estonia, mentioning the Republican right wing and influential voices like Elon Musk. “It’s dangerous.”Should Washington cut its aid to Ukraine, deciding that it is not worth the cost, top European officials, including the European Union’s head of foreign affairs and security policy, Josep Borrell Fontelles, openly acknowledge that Europe cannot fill the gap.He was in Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital, when Congress excluded support from Ukraine in its temporary budget deal. “That was certainly not expected, and certainly not good news,” Mr. Borrell told a summit meeting of E.U. leaders this month in Spain.European Union’s head of foreign affairs and security policy, Josep Borrell Fontelles, right, with Dmytro Kuleba, Ukraine’s foreign minister, this month in Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital.Ukraine Ministry of Foreign Affairs, via EPA, via Shutterstock“Europe cannot replace the United States,” he said, even as it proposes more aid. “Certainly, we can do more, but the United States is something indispensable for the support to Ukraine.” That same day, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia said that without Western aid, Ukraine could not survive more than a week.European leaders have pledged to send more air-defense systems to Ukraine to help fend off a possible new Russian air campaign targeting energy infrastructure as winter looms. Prime Minister Mark Rutte of the Netherlands said on Friday that his country would send additional Patriot missiles, which have proved effective in defending the skies over Kyiv, according to Mr. Zelensky’s office.At the same time, European vows to supply one million artillery shells to Ukraine by March are falling short, with countries supplying only 250,000 shells from stocks — a little more than one month of Ukraine’s current rate of fire — and factories still gearing up for more production.Adm. Rob Bauer, who is the chairman of the NATO Military Committee, said in Warsaw that Europe’s military industry had geared up too slowly and still needed to pick up the pace.“We started to give away from half-full or lower warehouses in Europe” to aid Ukraine, he said, “and therefore the bottom of the barrel is now visible.”Even before the outbreak of hostilities in the Middle East, a senior NATO official said that the mood about Ukraine was gloomy. Still, the official said that the Europeans were spending more on the military and that he expected Congress to continue aid to Ukraine, even if not the $43 billion authorized previously.Malcolm Chalmers, the deputy director of the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based defense research institution, said a key issue now is Ukrainian will and resources in what has become a war of attrition. “It’s not really about us anymore, it’s about them,” he said. “The issue is Ukrainian resilience.”Ukrainians will quietly admit to difficulties with morale as the war grinds on, but they see no option other than to continue the fight, whatever happens in the West.Soldiers with the 128th Brigade repairing a broken down Carnation, a self-propelled artillery piece, before taking it back to the front line in September in the Zaporizhzhia region of Ukraine.Lynsey Addario for The New York TimesBut some say that they are fearful that President Biden, facing what could be a difficult re-election campaign against Mr. Trump, will try to push Kyiv to get into negotiations for a cease-fire with Russia by next summer, to show that he is committed to peace.That worry is likely to be exaggerated, American officials suggest, given Mr. Biden’s continuing strong support for Ukraine, which is echoed in American opinion polls. But there remains confusion about any end goal that does not foresee Ukraine pushing all Russian troops out of sovereign Ukraine, or any clear path to negotiations with a Russia that shows no interest in talking.As Gabrielius Landsbergis, the foreign minister of Lithuania, said at the Warsaw security forum, the mantra “as long as it takes” fails to define “it,” let alone “long.” For him, “it” should mean driving the invading Russians out of all of Ukraine, including Crimea, which Moscow illegally annexed in 2014.In private, at least, other European officials consider that highly unlikely.Carl Bildt, the former Swedish prime minister and foreign minister, suggested that NATO’s 75th anniversary summit meeting next summer in Washington will be tense because of Ukraine, as it will come at the height of the American presidential campaign. Any invitation for Ukraine to join NATO is likely to help Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican candidate, Mr. Bildt said.But while many worry about the possibility of declining American support for Ukraine, the potential for backsliding is not limited to the United States, as the costs of the war are more deeply felt in Europe.In its campaign in Poland, for elections this weekend, the governing Law and Justice Party has complained angrily that Ukrainian grain exports are flooding the Polish market, damaging the farmers who are a key element of the party’s support and underlining the implications for Polish agriculture should Ukraine join the European Union.Mr. Zelensky responded that “it is alarming to see how some in Europe, some of our friends in Europe, play out solidarity in a political theater — making a thriller from the grain.”Grain stored in Leszczany, Poland, in April.Maciek Nabrdalik for The New York TimesThe Polish government, fighting for votes with parties farther to the right, then said it would cease military aid to Ukraine, even though it has already provided an enormous amount early in the war.Anti-Russian sentiment is a given in Poland, but the animosity toward Germany, an E.U. and NATO ally, was striking, too, said Slawomir Debski, the director the of Polish Institute of International Affairs.He described the campaign as “very dirty,” with wild accusations playing on strong anti-German, anti-Russian, anti-European Union sentiments, combined with growing tensions with Ukraine.It was all a sharp contrast to Poland’s embrace of Ukrainian refugees and important early provision of tanks, fighter jets and ammunition just last year.“I warned many people, including the Americans, that this government is being accused of doing too much for Ukraine, so be careful,” Mr. Debski said.Michal Baranowski, a Pole who is the managing director for the German Marshall Fund East, said he was “disheartened because Polish political leaders know we need to stay the course in Ukraine, but they are letting emotions and politics get the better of them.”Polish division, however political, does not stay in Poland, Mr. Baranowski warned. “The effect of this on the United States and the Republican Party is terrible,” he said.Constant Méheut More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Republican Speaker Fight Has Parallels in the Gingrich Era

      by

      The current chaos is not the first time Republicans have found themselves rocked by a vacancy at the top.The House speaker had been unceremoniously dumped by colleagues unhappy with his performance and overly optimistic political predictions. Those who would typically be considered next in line had made too many enemies to be able to secure the necessary numbers to take his place. The House was in utter chaos as bombs fell in the Middle East.Today’s relentless Republican turmoil over the House speakership has striking parallels to the tumult of 1998, when House G.O.P. lawmakers were also feuding over who would lead them at a crucial period.Then as now, personal vendettas and warring factions drove an extraordinary internal party fight that threw the House into chaos. The saga had multiple twists and turns as Republicans cycled through would-be speakers in rapid succession — just as the G.O.P. did this week. And in the end, they settled on a little-known congressman as a compromise choice.It’s not clear how the current speaker drama will end; Republicans left Washington on Friday after nominating their second candidate for speaker of the week, Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, with plans to return on Tuesday for a vote but no certainty that he could be elected.Back in 1998, Republicans moved swiftly to fill their power vacuum in just one day, unlike the present situation, where they have let unrest fester for more than a week while struggling to overcome deep internal divisions and anoint a new leader.“That was pretty chaotic,” said Representative Harold Rogers, the Kentucky Republican who was already a veteran lawmaker at the time and is now the dean of the House as its longest-serving member. “But it didn’t last very long.”Both dramas began when a Republican speaker lost the faith of some key colleagues. Hard-right Republicans precipitated their party’s current crisis by forcing out Representative Kevin McCarthy of California from the speaker post as punishment for working with Democrats to avert a government shutdown. Twenty-five years ago, Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Georgia Republican whose closest allies were turning on him, announced he would not run again for speaker.Mr. Gingrich, whose scorched-earth tactics had returned Republicans to the majority in 1995 after four decades in the minority wilderness, was finally burned himself after predicting Republican gains in that November’s elections, only to lose seats.Representative Richard K. Armey of Texas, who held the same majority leader position then as Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana does today, was a potential replacement, as was Representative Tom DeLay, the powerful No. 3 Republican whip who was also from Texas. But both had political baggage likely to keep them from the top job, and Mr. Armey faced a fight just to remain in the No. 2 slot.Neither even bothered going through the motions of seeking their party’s nomination, as Mr. Scalise did successfully on Wednesday — only to discover quickly that he lacked the support to be elected, leading to his abrupt withdrawal.“Both of them were toxic, and they knew it,” Fred Upton, the recently retired moderate Republican from Michigan who was in the House at the time, said of Mr. Armey and Mr. DeLay.Sensing an opportunity, Robert Livingston, an ambitious Louisiana Republican who commanded a solid bloc of supporters as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, jumped into the speaker’s race and cleared the field. He won the Republican nomination without opposition in mid-November.Mr. Livingston went about setting up his new leadership operation as Republicans plunged ahead with the impeachment of President Bill Clinton growing out of his relationship with a White House intern. Many Republicans believed the impeachment push had cost them in the just-concluded election, but pursuing Mr. Clinton was a priority of Mr. DeLay, whose nickname was the Hammer, and he was not one to be deterred.Then Saturday, Dec. 19, arrived, with the House set to consider articles of impeachment even as Mr. Clinton had ordered airstrikes against Iraq over suspected weapons violations — an action that Republicans accused him of taking to stave off impeachment.Mr. Livingston, who had not yet assumed the speakership but was playing a leadership role, rose on the floor to urge Mr. Clinton to resign and spare the nation a divisive impeachment fight. But Mr. Livingston himself had acknowledged extramarital affairs a few days earlier to his colleagues. Democrats began shouting “no, no, no” as he spoke.“You resign,” shouted Representative Maxine Waters, Democrat of California. “You resign.”To the amazement of everyone present, Mr. Livingston did just that, saying that he would set an example for the president and that he would not run for speaker. The House was stunned as lawmakers absorbed the news — similar to the surreal atmosphere last week when it became clear that Mr. McCarthy would be removed as speaker after hard-right Republicans moved to oust him and eight of them joined Democrats in pushing through a motion to vacate the chair.Dennis Hastert became the longest-serving Republican speaker in history before Democrats won the House back in 2006. He was later convicted of paying to cover up sexual abuse.Doug Mills/The New York TimesA mad scramble was on to identify a new speaker candidate. Names of prominent and seasoned House Republicans were bandied about, but Mr. DeLay, a singular force in the chamber, was not about to accept one of them as a potential rival.He turned to a fairly innocuous Illinois Republican who had watched Mr. Livingston from the back row of the House, J. Dennis Hastert, a former wrestling coach who served as Mr. DeLay’s chief deputy and would not be a threat to usurp much of his influence. Mr. DeLay and others told Mr. Hastert that he needed to step up to unify Republicans.By the end of the day, Republicans had approved articles of impeachment against Mr. Clinton and coalesced around Mr. Hastert as the next speaker — a rapid resolution that Mr. Upton noted was lacking in the present speaker drama. He said Republicans should have moved much more quickly after the vote to depose Mr. McCarthy to install someone rather than recessing for the week.“It would have been over and done with,” Mr. Upton said.Mr. Hastert went on to be the longest-serving Republican speaker in history before Democrats won the House back in 2006. But his public career ended in disgrace when he was convicted and sentenced to 15 months in federal prison in 2016 for paying to cover up admitted sexual abuse of young wrestlers committed long before he rose to surprising power in Congress.Mr. DeLay, his patron, was forced from Congress by ethics issues but ultimately had his conviction on campaign finance violations thrown out of court. Mr. Livingston went on to become a successful Washington lobbyist. Mr. Clinton was acquitted by the Senate. Mr. Gingrich remains a voice in G.O.P. politics. And Republicans still struggle with speaker issues. More