World news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Kushner camping tale one of many bizarre scenes in latest Trump book

      by

      Kushner camping tale one of many bizarre scenes in latest Trump book Confidence Man by Maggie Haberman reveals racism, transphobia and ignorance from ex-president’s time in powerIn a meeting supposedly about campaign strategy in the 2020 election, Donald Trump implied his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, might be brutally attacked, even raped, should he ever go camping.Trump asked May at debut meeting why Boris Johnson was not PM, book saysRead more“Ivanka wants to rent one of those big RVs,” Trump told bemused aides, according to a new book by Maggie Haberman of the New York Times, before gesturing to his daughter’s husband.“This skinny guy wants to do it. Can you imagine Jared and his skinny ass camping? It’d be like something out of Deliverance.”According to Haberman, Trump then “made noises mimicking the banjo theme song from the 1972 movie about four men vacationing in rural Georgia who are attacked, pursued and in one case brutally raped by a local resident”.The bizarre scene is just one of many in Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America, which will be published next week. The Guardian obtained a copy.The book has been extensively trailed. Headlines drawn from it have concerned Trump’s racism (he thought Black White House staffers were waiters); his transphobia (he asked if a notional young questioner was “cocked or uncocked”); and his belligerent ignorance (he mistook a health aide for a military adviser because he wore uniform, and asked if he could bomb Mexican drug labs).Trump’s undiplomatic crudity has also been put on display. According to Haberman, he asked the British prime minister, Theresa May, to “imagine if some animals with tattoos raped your daughter and she got pregnant” and called Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, “that bitch”.In other shocking scenes, Trump is reported to have said he could not afford to alienate white supremacists because “a lot of these people vote”, and to have been called a fascist by John Kelly, his second chief of staff.Haberman also writes that when the liberal supreme court justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was battling cancer, Trump sarcastically prayed for her health and asked: “How much longer do you think she has?”Haberman even reports that Trump may have called a Democratic congresswoman, pretending to be a Washington Post reporter and angling for comments about himself.The story about Trump mocking Kushner’s suitability for outdoor pursuits, meanwhile, is of a piece with other scenes in which Trump is shown to mock and belittle his son-in-law.According to Haberman, Trump criticised Kushner for observing religious customs (“‘Fucking Shabbat,’ Trump groused, asking no one in particular if his Jewish son-in-law was really religious or just avoiding work”) and for being effete.“He sounds like a child,” Trump is said to have commented in 2017, after Kushner spoke to reporters following an appearance before a congressional committee.In a scene which echoes the former Trump aide Peter Navarro’s description of an abortive campaign coup against Kushner, Trump is also shown resolving to fire Kushner and his wife, Ivanka Trump, by tweet – but being talked out of doing so.Trump’s political career has generated a stream of books by Washington reporters and tell-alls by ex-White House staffers. Nonetheless, Confidence Man is eagerly awaited, touted as “the book Trump fears most”.Haberman has covered Trump since his days as a New York property magnate, reality TV host and celebrity political blowhard. Known in some circles as “the Trump whisperer”, she was even seen taking calls from the then president in a documentary about the Times, The Fourth Estate, which was released in 2018.Having written countless scoops about the Trump White House, Haberman has continued to cover a post-presidency in which Trump has maintained control of the Republican party while seemingly plotting another campaign, having escaped being brought to account over the January 6 insurrection.The Divider review: riveting narrative of Trump’s plot against AmericaRead moreLike other authors of Trump books, Haberman draws on interviews with the former president. As with other authors, Trump appears to have enjoyed the process. At one point, Haberman writes, he “turned to the two aides he had sitting in on our interview, gestured toward me with his hand, and said, ‘I love being with her; she’s like my psychiatrist.’”But such comfort may have prompted Trump to reveal more than might have been advised.In one exchange that has excited widespread comment, Trump admitted taking classified material from the White House – a decision now the source of considerable legal jeopardy.In light of the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago on 8 August, some observers have questioned whether Haberman should have reported Trump’s admission immediately or even alerted the Department of Justice.Most of Haberman’s reporting, however, has been greeted with familiar glee, not least the opening salvo of her pre-publication campaign: a picture of presidential documents torn up and put down a toilet.TopicsBooksDonald TrumpTrump administrationUS politicsUS press and publishingNew York TimesNewspapersnewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Secret Service took phones from 24 agents involved in January 6 response – report

      by

      Secret Service took phones from 24 agents involved in January 6 response – reportPhones reportedly confiscated amid criminal investigation about missing text messages from January 5 and 6 US Secret Service leaders confiscated cellphones from 24 agents involved in the response to the Capitol attack amid a criminal investigation about missing text messages from 5 and 6 January 2021, according to a new report.Citing “two sources with knowledge of the action”, NBC News said the phones were handed to Joseph Cuffari, the Department of Homeland Security inspector general, in late July or early August, shortly after Cuffari launched an investigation requested by the National Archives.Hurricane Ian barrels towards Florida as officials warn of looming catastrophe – liveRead more“One source familiar with the Secret Service decision to comply with Cuffari’s request said some agents were upset their leaders were quick to confiscate the phones without their input,” NBC reported. “But given that the phones belong to the agency … the agents had little say in the matter.”The Secret Service did not immediately comment. Cuffari’s office said it would not confirm or comment on the investigation.In July, Cuffari told Congress Secret Service text messages from 5 January 2021, the day before Trump supporters attacked the Capitol, and 6 January had been erased despite an oversight request.The resulting tussle between the Trump-appointed official and the House January 6 committee and made dramatic headlines.Investigators have since secured access to chats and emails between agents on security details for Donald Trump and Mike Pence.The committee is seeking to establish how the Secret Service moved Trump and his vice-president – and why – as the Capitol attack unfolded.Testimony has described how Trump struggled with one member of his security detail, as he was moved to the White House instead of going to the Capitol with his supporters.The committee has also been told how Pence’s detail moved him through the Capitol as rioters broke in with some chanting “Hang Mike Pence” as a gallows was erected outside.An unnamed security official said: “The members of the VP detail were starting to fear for their own lives. There was a lot of yelling. There were a lot of very personal calls over the radio … there were calls to say goodbye to family members … for whatever reason it was on the ground, the VP detail thought this was about to get very ugly.“… It sounds like we came very close to either Service having to use lethal options or worse.”In July, referring to controversy over the missing texts and friction between the House committee and Secret Service officials, the presidential historian Michael Beschloss tweeted: “For all of those … agents who seem to love and venerate Trump, look at how he did nothing to defend Mike Pence’s agents on January 6 as they called their frightened families to say goodbye forever.”The rioters were attempting to stop certification of Joe Biden’s election victory, a process overseen by the vice-president. Pence reportedly resisted Secret Service attempts to remove him from the Capitol.In their book I Alone Can Fix It: Donald J Trump’s Catastrophic Final Year, Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker of the Washington Post said Pence refused to get into a car.A Pence aide, Keith Kellogg, reportedly told Tony Ornato, the head of Trump’s detail who became deputy White House chief of staff, Pence had “a job to do” and was going to stay at the Capitol “if he has to wait there all night”.Pence ultimately presided over the certification in the small hours of 7 January.TopicsSecret ServiceUS politicsDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      McConnell endorses bipartisan bill to prevent efforts to overturn US elections

      by

      McConnell endorses bipartisan bill to prevent efforts to overturn US elections Legislation would clarify and expand parts of 1887 Electoral Count Act and aim to avoid repeat of January 6 insurrection The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, said on Tuesday he would “proudly support” legislation to overhaul rules for certifying presidential elections, bolstering a bipartisan effort to revise a 19th-century law and avoid any repeat of the January 6 insurrection.The legislation would clarify and expand parts of the 1887 Electoral Count Act, which, along with the constitution, governs how states and Congress certify electors and declare presidential winners.The changes in the certification process are in response to unsuccessful efforts by Donald Trump and his allies to exploit loopholes in the law and overturn his 2020 defeat by Joe Biden.Senate to vote on funding bill to avert shutdown amid Manchin standoffRead moreMcConnell made the remarks just before a committee vote on the legislation. He said he would back the bill as long as a bipartisan agreement on the language was not significantly changed.“Congress’s process for counting the presidential electors’ votes was written 135 years ago,” McConnell said. “The chaos that came to a head on January 6 of last year certainly underscored the need for an update.”McConnell noted that in addition to Republican objections to Biden’s win, Democrats objected the last three times that Republicans won presidential elections. The legislation would make it harder for Congress to sustain those objections.A total of 147 Republicans in the House and Senate objected to results in key states won by Biden. Handfuls of Democrats objected to Donald Trump’s victory in 2016 and George W Bush’s wins in 2000 and 2004.McConnell’s comments gave the legislation a major boost as its bipartisan sponsors push to pass the bill before the end of the year and the next election cycle. Trump is still lying about election fraud as he considers another run.The House has passed a more expansive bill overhauling electoral rules but it has far less Republican support. While the House bill received a handful of GOP votes, the Senate version has the backing of at least 12 Republicans – more than enough to break a filibuster and pass the legislation in the 50-50 Senate.The Senate rules committee was expected to approve the legislation on Tuesday and send it to the full chamber. A vote isn’t expected until after the November elections.Senators were expected to make minor tweaks to the legislation but keep the bill largely intact. The bill, written by the Republican Susan Collins of Maine and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a Democrat, would make clear that the vice-president only has a ceremonial role in the certification process, tighten the rules on states sending votes to Congress and make it harder for lawmakers to object.Trump publicly pressured states, members of Congress and his vice-president, Mike Pence, to undo Biden’s win. Even though Trump’s effort failed, lawmakers in both parties said his attacks showed the need for stronger safeguards in the law.The bill would be the strongest legislative response yet to the January 6 attack, in which hundreds of Trump supporters beat police officers, broke into the Capitol and interrupted as lawmakers were counting the votes. Once the rioters were cleared, the House and Senate rejected GOP objections to the vote in two states.Differences between the House and Senate bills will have to be resolved before final passage, including language on congressional objections.While the Senate bill would require a fifth of both chambers to agree on an electoral objection to trigger a vote, the House bill would require agreement from at least a third of House members and a third of the Senate. Currently, only one objection in each chamber is required for the House and Senate to vote on whether to reject a state’s electors.The House bill also lays out new grounds for objections. The Senate bill does not.TopicsUS elections 2020RepublicansUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on moving the British embassy to Jerusalem: don’t do it | Editorial

      by

      The Guardian view on moving the British embassy to Jerusalem: don’t do itEditorialLiz Truss has promised a review, but relocating it would be shameful and stupid. That might not put off the prime minister – but it should Donald Trump’s relocation of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in 2018 was incendiary. Widely criticised, including by the British government, it sparked protests and clashes in which Israeli security forces killed dozens of Palestinians. Though a superpower’s example offers cover to others, only four countries followed suit: Honduras, Guatemala, Kosovo – and Paraguay, which swiftly reversed course.Yet Liz Truss last week said that she was considering relocating the British embassy. The case against a move is logical, legal and practical as well as moral. East Jerusalem has been considered occupied territory under international law since the six-day war in 1967, and the future capital of a Palestinian state. Mr Trump’s proposals for an unworkable “peace plan” committed to Jerusalem as an “undivided” capital – Israel’s position. But British policy remains unchanged. Moving the embassy would tear up the commitment to any meaningful two-state solution. It would tacitly condone the march of illegal settlements. Palestinian doors would slam in the faces of diplomats, the British Council and others: longstanding suspicion of the UK has accelerated in recent years. Relations with other Middle East nations would suffer. All this for minimal, if any, benefit.The prime minister’s remarks came on the sidelines of the UN general assembly meeting where Yair Lapid voiced support for a two-state solution – the first Israeli prime minister to do so since 2017. This is a return to the rhetorical status quo ante, without either intention or ability to act upon his words, while the reality on the ground makes a peace deal ever more distant. There is no prospect of serious talks with Palestinians and minimal external pressure. While it may have been intended to sweeten his message on Iran, most have seen it in the context of November’s general election – Israel’s fifth in less than four years, and once again shaping up as a contest for and against former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu (currently favoured by polls). The thinking is that Mr Lapid hopes to encourage voters on the left to turn out or, more likely, switch to him, keeping him at the head of the anti-Bibi bloc.It may also smooth relations with Joe Biden, who hailed his remarks, but has shown little real interest in the future of Palestinians. His administration vowed to reopen the consulate in Jerusalem, which served Palestinians, and the PLO mission in Washington; neither has happened. The president’s cursory trip to East Jerusalem and Bethlehem this summer looked like cover for his meeting with Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman.Badly failed by their own leadership too, Palestinians feel not only frustrated and angry, but betrayed. Ms Truss’s review is further confirmation that they are right. Her brief tenure has already demonstrated that a policy’s badness, stupidity and unpopularity are not obstacles to embracing it: the opportunity to “challenge conformity” – ignoring officials’ warnings – may even be a spur. This is still more likely when Palestinians, rather than her own electorate, will pay. But Britain’s historical responsibilities, as well as international law, demand that it does better. It should keep the embassy in Tel Aviv, and not add to the damage already done.TopicsIsraelOpinionMiddle East and north AfricaBenjamin NetanyahuYair LapidLiz TrussUS politicsJoe BideneditorialsReuse this content More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Republican ex-congressman suggests colleagues ‘had serious cognitive issues’

      by

      Republican ex-congressman suggests colleagues ‘had serious cognitive issues’Paul Gosar and Louie Gohmert were eager to believe ‘wild, dramatic fantasies’, claims Denver Riggleman in new book The Republican congressmen Louis Gohmert and Paul Gosar adopted such extreme, conspiracy-tinged positions, even before the US Capitol attack, that a fellow member of the rightwing Freedom Caucus thought they “may have had serious cognitive issues”.White House switchboard called phone linked to January 6 rioter after attackRead moreDenver Riggleman, once a US representative from Virginia, reports his impression of his former colleagues from Texas and Arizona in a new book.The Breach: The Untold Story of the Investigation into January 6th is published in the US on Tuesday. The Guardian obtained an early copy.Riggleman is a former US air force intelligence officer who lost his seat in Congress after he officiated a same-sex marriage. In his book, he describes fallout beyond his primary defeat, including someone tampering with the wheels of his truck, endangering the life of his daughter.“If I ever find the individual who did that,” he writes, “God help that person.”After leaving Congress, Riggleman worked for the House January 6 committee, members of which were reportedly angered by his decision to publish a book.Describing text messages surrendered to the committee by Mark Meadows, Donald Trump’s last chief of staff, Riggleman shows that on 5 November 2020, two days after election day and with the result not called, Gohmert touted his experience as an attorney and tried to join the White House team working to overturn Joe Biden’s win.“I’m in DC,” Gohmert wrote to Meadows. “Thinking I’ll head to Philadelphia to fuss. Would love to be there … at [White House] to be ear for discussions and advice if asked. Handled massive fraud case vs Texas biggest utility … so some legal experience. May I come over?”Meadows asked Gohmert to go on TV instead.But Gohmert remained in Trump’s orbit. On 20 December, along with Scott Perry (Pennsylvania), Andy Biggs (Arizona), Jody Hice (Georgia), Matt Gaetz (Florida), Mo Brooks (Alabama) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (Georgia), he attended a White House meeting with Trump at which election subversion was discussed.According to testimony to the January 6 committee, Gohmert, Gaetz, Brooks, Greene, Perry and Biggs asked for pardons before Trump left office.On 6 January 2021, a crowd Trump knew to be armed but told to “fight like hell” breached Congress in an attempt to stop certification of the election. Nine deaths have been linked to the riot, including law enforcement suicides.Riggleman describes how in the aftermath of the attack, Gohmert and other Republicans continued to push conspiracy theories, claiming the attackers were leftwingers disguised as Trump supporters.Such claims have entered the Republican mainstream. So has the far right.Describing his own spell in Congress, between 2019 and 2021, Riggleman says he joined the hardline Freedom Caucus as a way to allay concerns among conservatives that he was insufficiently loyal to Trump.Once in, he says, he “began to understand that some of my colleagues had fully bought into even the more unhinged conspiracy theories I had been seeing out on the campaign trail”.Riggleman describes one meeting in which Gohmert “promoted a conspiracy theory related to master algorithms”, saying he “suspected there was a secret technology shadow-banning conservatives across all platforms”.Riggleman writes that others “nodded along”, though “of course, that’s crazy”. He says he said “something to that effect” during the meeting in question.In subsequent meetings, Riggleman “would come to see that Gohmert was one of a few colleagues who had gone deep down the rabbit hole.“Scott Perry, Jody Hice, Randy Weber and the caucus chairman, Andy Biggs, all said things that stunned me.”Gosar is a far-right provocateur whose many controversies include being censured for tweeting a video depicting violence against Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a prominent New York progressive.Riggleman says Gosar and Gohmert “seemed to be joined at the brain stem when it came to their eagerness to believe wild, dramatic fantasies about Democrats, the media and big tech.“I came to believe Gosar and Gohmert may have had serious cognitive issues.”Riggleman also calls Gosar “a blatant white supremacist”, describing him and the Iowa Republican Steve King “making a case for white supremacy over pulled pork and ribs”.“It was unbelievable,” Riggleman writes. “I had always bristled when I’d hear Democrats dismiss Republicans as ‘racists’. To me, it seemed like an easy insult that dodged policy discussions. Now, here I was behind the curtain, seeing that some of my colleagues really seemed to hold these awful views.”Describing his own farewell address, which he made a month before the Capitol attack, Riggleman claims to have been “the canary in the coalmine” regarding extremism in the Republican party.“On 10 December 2020,” he writes, “less than a month before the Capitol attack, I … railed against disinformation and ‘super-spreader digital viruses that create a fever of nonsense’ … I noted how QAnon promoters were linked with both the conspiracists who questioned the Covid pandemic and Trump’s Stop the Steal movement to overturn the election.“… Based on what I had been seeing, I warned that we were heading down a very dark road. No one listened.”TopicsBooksRepublicansThe far rightPolitics booksHouse of RepresentativesUS CongressUS Capitol attacknewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘I want a president who has been gaybashed’: America’s underground anthem

      by

      ‘I want a president who has been gaybashed’: America’s underground anthem Zoe Leonard wanted a leader who had been on welfare, lost a lover to Aids, and much more. Sadly her plea, penned in 1992 and later displayed beneath New York’s High Line, is just as relevant today‘I want a dyke for president,” reads the opening of Zoe Leonard’s I Want a President. “I want a person with aids for president and I want a fag for vice-president and I want someone with no health insurance and I want someone who grew up in a place where the earth is so saturated with toxic waste that they didn’t have a choice about getting leukemia.”Originally intended to be published as “a statement” in an underground LGBT magazine, I Want a President was written in the run-up to the 1992 US presidential race. This took place at the height of the Aids epidemic, a medical issue turned political crisis that was, in the previous decade, catastrophically silenced by Ronald Reagan. President from 1981 to 89, Reagan failed to acknowledge Aids until thousands had died. The queer community was in turmoil, in the grip of a disease that took the lives of so many, and stigmatised even more.TopicsArtThe great women’s art bulletinUS politicsLGBTQ+ rightsfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 100 Shares169 Views

      in World Politics

      Is the US-Iran Nuclear Deal Worth the Hassle?

      by

      The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

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

      by

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