Latest news with #anti-Arab
Atlantic
a day ago
- Politics
- Atlantic
The Corrupt Bargain Behind Gaza's Catastrophe
When Benjamin Netanyahu returned to power in 2022 after a brief period of political exile, he did so on the backs of the most extreme allies in Israeli history. Fourteen of his coalition's 64 seats were held by parties led by two explicitly anti-Arab lawmakers: Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. Ben-Gvir had been charged and convicted of support for terrorism and racist incitement. He was a disciple of Meir Kahane, a rabbi who called for the expulsion of Israel's Arabs and whose political party was banned from Parliament for its radicalism. Smotrich had advocated segregating Jews and Arabs in Israeli maternity wards and told his Arab colleagues in the Knesset that they were 'enemies' who were 'here by mistake.' Both Ben-Gvir and Smotrich expressed sympathy for violent settler attacks in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Both sought to annex the West Bank and disenfranchise or expel the Palestinians living there. And both became ministers in Netanyahu's new government, because the Israeli leader desperately needed their support. The math was simple: The parties in Netanyahu's coalition received just 48.4 percent of the vote and attained a parliamentary majority only through a quirk of the Israeli electoral system. This meant that Netanyahu entered office in a profoundly precarious position—on trial for corruption and beholden to extremists who could bring him down if he bucked their demands. Recognizing how bad this arrangement looked from the outside, Netanyahu embarked on an international PR campaign to assure outsiders that he, not the extremists, was running the show. 'They are joining me,' he told NPR. 'I'm not joining them.' The trajectory of the war in Gaza has conclusively disproved this spin. At crucial junctures, the prime minister's choices have been corrupted by the need to cater to those with the ability to end his grip on power. As a result, he has undermined Israel's war effort and shredded the country's international standing abroad. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the events that precipitated the Gaza hunger crisis. Israel was faced with a dilemma after Hamas butchered some 1,200 Israelis and took hundreds more hostage. The United Nations Relief Works Agency was the only actor capable of delivering humanitarian aid to the civilians of Gaza during the ensuing war, but UNRWA was compromised by Hamas, which siphoned supplies for itself and sold them at a markup to fund its operations. Although the extent of this co-option is disputed, the fact of it cannot be denied. Employees of the organization were among the perpetrators of the October 7 atrocities, as even the UN itself has acknowledged; hostages have testified that they were held by UNRWA staff or in UNRWA facilities. 'All aid goes down'—that is, underground to Hamas—and 'does not reach the nation,' an elderly Palestinian woman told Al Jazeera in December 2023. 'Everything goes to their houses. They take it, they will even shoot me and do whatever they want to me, Hamas.' Hamas has obscured its subversion of aid by intimidating aid workers, civilians, and media outlets. In the early days of the war, the terrorist group reportedly looted fuel and medical supplies from UNRWA's headquarters in Gaza City. The aid organization initially disclosed this on social media but then deleted the post. It had good reason to worry. More than a decade ago, a senior UNRWA officer in Gaza attempted to investigate whether any of the organization's local employees were moonlighting with Hamas. He received a funeral bouquet in the mail, and later a live grenade, at which point he was evacuated from the territory. According to The New York Times, Matthias Schmale, the head of UNRWA in Gaza from 2017 to 2021, gave a TV interview that upset Hamas; he was pushed out of his position after the group 'informed UNRWA that it could no longer guarantee his security.' 'Would I be totally surprised if at the end of the day there is proof that 2,000 UNRWA staff are members of Hamas?' Schmale told the paper. 'No, I wouldn't be,' though 'it would be a bit shocking if it is such a high number.' Faced with this predicament, as well as pressure from the Biden administration to allow more aid, Israel had several credible options for providing humanitarian assistance. Starting on day one of its ground invasion, the army could have begun building a new aid mechanism for Gaza's civilians by setting up non-UNRWA distribution centers, in conjunction with local and international partners, in each area where it assumed control. Or Israel could simply have flooded the enclave with so much aid that Hamas would not be able to resell it for significant value. This latter option had the downside of inevitably funneling food and fuel to Hamas in its tunnels, perversely bolstering the group's fight against the country supplying it. But realistically speaking, there was no way to starve Hamas out of its well-stocked underground fortress without first starving the desperate Gazan civilian population, which, as ever, served as the group's human shield. Israel chose neither of these options. Instead, it allowed UNRWA to continue limited operations, while repeatedly tightening and relaxing restrictions in response to complaints about the diversion of aid. Israel then agreed to surge supplies into the territory during the 42-day cease-fire in January—only to completely blockade all aid for two months afterward. Finally, with Gaza on the brink, Israel and the United States launched the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation in May, attempting at last to displace UNRWA. This effort to implement an entirely new system on the fly, under the worst possible conditions, unsurprisingly failed. Both Israeli troops and Hamas killed Palestinians trying to reach the distribution sites, and food prices in Gaza skyrocketed, culminating in the crisis we see today. Israel's choices here are contradictory and do not make moral or strategic sense. But they do make political sense from Netanyahu's perspective. Since the start of the war, the prime minister has contended with pressures from opposing directions: from international partners insisting that he sustain Gaza's civilians and from the right flank of his coalition, which seeks to ethnically cleanse those civilians and repopulate the area with Jewish settlements. Ben-Gvir and Smotrich have explicitly called for the 'voluntary migration' of the area's Palestinian population and advocated ending humanitarian aid as a lever to achieve it. 'The only way to win the war and bring back the hostages is to completely stop the 'humanitarian' aid, conquer the entire Gaza Strip, and encourage voluntary migration,' Ben-Gvir declared on Saturday on social media. To keep this faction in check—and keep himself in power—Netanyahu needed to ensure that the choices he made could satisfy not just military imperatives or international diktats but also the hard right's demands. Every step he authorized had to be dual use: ostensibly for a strategic purpose but also capable of potentially advancing the far right's plan. In practice, pursuing these two goals at the same time is incompatible with a just and successfully prosecuted war: It is impossible to provide aid and also withhold it, to pursue a limited war against Hamas to free hostages and also a war of conquest. The longer the conflict has gone on, the more obvious the compromised nature of Netanyahu's decision making has become. Initially, the Israeli leader was restrained by pressure from the Biden administration (which pushed for more aid and compelled Netanyahu to reject Gazan displacement), Defense Minister Yoav Gallant (who insisted that Gaza be returned to Palestinian governance), and the centrist wartime-coalition partner Benny Gantz (who advocated for a cease-fire). But Gantz left the coalition in June 2024, Joe Biden was replaced by Donald Trump in November, Netanyahu fired Gallant the day Trump won, and then Trump himself proposed relocating the Gazan population in order to construct a 'Riviera in the Middle East.' The result: Today, the only pressure on Netanyahu is from the far right, which is effectively running his war policy against the desires of a large majority of Israelis who oppose settlements in Gaza and support a hostage deal to end the war. This bleak reality and its consequences explain the growing alienation of many of even Israel's strongest international allies. After October 7, Israel's partners may have thought they were interfacing with a typical—if deeply conservative—Israeli government. Now they actually seem to be dealing with a Smotrich/Ben-Gvir government in a Netanyahu-shaped trench coat. Belatedly, a group of European countries, as well as Britain, Australia, and Canada, are attempting—without American assistance—to reimpose the pressures that might compel Netanyahu to change course. Hamas has agency in all this. It chose to launch the October 7 attack knowing that it would provoke a devastating response; it chooses to hold hostages in underground dungeons under inhumane conditions; it chooses to hide within and beneath Gaza's civilians; it chooses to appropriate aid intended for those civilians to fuel its messianic war machine. Israel also faces prejudice and unfair expectations that would not be faced by many other countries in such circumstances. But Netanyahu has agency in how he chooses to respond to these realities. He has made his choice—and Palestinians and Israelis will continue to pay the price for it until he makes a different one.
Middle East Eye
2 days ago
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
Dutch intelligence report identifies Israel as a foreign threat for first time
The Netherlands has named Israel as a foreign threat to the country's national security for the first time, citing disinformation campaigns endangering the lives of Dutch citizens. A report published by the National Coordinator for Security and Counter-terrorism (NCTV) says that Israel attempted to influence public opinion and politics in the country by circulating documents directly to Dutch journalists and politicians instead of using the official diplomatic channels. The alleged disinformation campaign occurred after the clashes that followed the football match between Ajax and Maccabi Tel Aviv in Amsterdam last November. Close to 30 people were wounded as Israeli fans were caught on video vandalising property, threatening and assaulting people, as well as chanting racist, anti-Arab slogans. The Israeli authorities branded the riots as antisemitic and ordered two rescue planes to the Netherlands to evacuate the fans. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters A week later, the mayor of Amsterdam, Femke Halsema, took back her comments describing the violence as a "pogrom", saying that Israel "bypassed" Dutch authorities regarding the details of the events and their framing. The NCTV report said that the document circulated by Israel-affiliated agencies also contained "unusual and unwanted personal details" about Dutch citizens. The country's ministries of justice, security and foreign affairs warned that these individuals could face threats, harassment and even physical attacks. The NCTV further voiced concerns over mounting threats from both Israel and the US toward the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. The report said that this could potentially disrupt the court's work. Last year, the ICC issued arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant over their role in alleged war crimes in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territories. ICC lawyer linked to Netanyahu advisor warned Khan to drop war crimes probe or be 'destroyed' Read More » The court has since faced significant pressure from the US and Israel to drop the investigation. The Netherlands hosts key international legal institutions, such as the International Court of Justice, and bears a special responsibility to protect them from external influence. The NCTV report comes as the Dutch government - a traditional Israeli ally - has become increasingly critical of the country over its war on Gaza and the deteriorating humanitarian situation in the besieged enclave. Along with Ireland and Spain, the Netherlands has urged the European Union to reevaluate its ties with Israel due to its war on Gaza, accusing the country of violating the human rights provisions in the EU-Israel association agreement. In February 2024, The Hague court of appeals ordered the Dutch government to stop the export of F-35 fighter jet components to Israel. The court raised concerns that the weapons may be used to breach international humanitarian law. However, despite the court's decision, there have been reports that the Netherlands is still supporting the supply chain of Israel's version of the F-35 fighter jet.
The National
5 days ago
- Politics
- The National
Israel's Knesset has become a forum for extremism
To gauge how noxious Israeli politics has become, one need only consider what the past month has been like for Ayman Odeh, the Arab leader of a coalition of leftist parties. The Knesset, Israel's legislature, moved to impeach Mr Odeh for a tweet earlier in the year in which he said he was 'happy for the release of [Israeli] hostages and [Palestinian] prisoners' – the inclusion of both groups in the same sentence apparently too much for his detractors. Parliamentarians voted overwhelmingly – 73 to 14 – for Mr Odeh's expulsion, but a boycott of the session by Ultra-Orthodox parties over an unrelated issue prevented the 90-vote threshold required from being met. Then, last weekend, Mr Odeh was attacked on his way to an anti-war protest in central Israel. His assailants cracked the windshield of his car while he was inside, and chanted 'Death to Arabs'. Police, Mr Odeh says, stood by and did nothing. The silence from his fellow parliamentarians has been deafening. Yet it is little surprise, considering the anti-Arab mood in the Knesset appears to be at a fever pitch. On Wednesday, the legislature voted in favour of a non-binding motion to annex the West Bank, a Palestinian territory whose long-standing occupation by Israeli security forces is illegal under international law. The West Bank is a critical part of historic Palestine and any future Palestinian the vote was overwhelming, with 71 for to 13 against. The Knesset resolution called on the government 'to apply Israeli sovereignty, law, judgement and administration' over large areas where illegal Jewish settlements are present, and noted the entire territory is 'an inseparable part of the land of Israel', to which Israel has a 'natural, historical and legal right'. The anti-Arab mood appears to be at a fever pitch Ten Arab and Islamic countries, along with the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation, released a statement on Thursday roundly condemning the Knesset resolution. The statement, of which the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Egypt were signatories, called the resolution 'a flagrant and unacceptable violation of international law', adding it will 'only fuel the growing tension in the region, exacerbated by the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip and the resulting humanitarian catastrophe'. The resolution has been viewed by Israeli politicians as a largely symbolic measure, as it does not carry the force of law. But it is deeply problematic, both as an antagonistic barb against the dignity and rights of Palestinians and as a barometer of public sentiment. While it is true that the statements and votes of Members of the Knesset belie more nuanced public opinion, the picture is still disturbing. A poll conducted by The Jerusalem Post in February found that 35 per cent of Israelis favour a 'Jewish-only state, from the river to the sea'. This would, in effect, include the prospect of annexation of the West Bank and the end of hopes for a Palestinian state. The pro-annexation movement is about much more than territorial claims. It inherently denies Palestinians the right to exist as a national community – it is no coincidence the most prominent supporters of annexing the West Bank apply their logic to Gaza, too. The fact that it has become an ideological staple in the Knesset makes its success as eventual national policy much likelier, and that ought to alarm everyone in the region, as well as Israel's allies in the West. A generalised acceptance of lawlessness and oppression among most of a country's politicians can have concrete consequences. Even if the annexation resolution is symbolic, the violent assault against Mr Odeh was very real.
Telegraph
6 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
How James O'Brien became the most polarising voice on the radio
The perpetually exasperated LBC talk radio host James O'Brien seems to provoke irritation and inspire admiration in equal measure. During the weekday show he has hosted since 2004, he's become famed as much for his sneering derision for callers on subjects from Brexit to Donald Trump as he has for eloquently dissecting the news of the day. But this week, the 53-year-old's polarising approach slipped into something more sinister when he repeated the anti-Semitic testimony of a man who made ludicrous claims about his Jewish wife 's 'anti-Arab' indoctrination. Speaking to his audience of hundreds of thousands, the former Newsnight host read out a message that said: 'My wife was brought up Jewish and at Shabbat school, in a leafy Hertfordshire town, she was taught that one Jewish life is worth thousands of Arab lives and that Arabs are cockroaches to be crushed. Whilst young children are taught such hatred and dehumanisation – undoubtedly on both sides – then they will always be able to justify death and cruelty.' 'Unacceptable and highly offensive' O'Brien's apparent readiness to accept the veracity of the inflammatory account led to calls for his suspension from LBC. For critics, it marked the most extreme example yet of his perceived arrogance. Indeed, O'Brien prefaced what he read out on Tuesday with the words: 'I'm fascinated by objectivity', as if – rather than being a highly questionable set of claims – this was a provably factual account that his audience desperately needed to be made aware of. Others, however, were quick to take issue with his behaviour. Critics included the Board of Deputies of British Jews, who called O'Brien's decision 'unacceptable and highly offensive'. The backlash has led him to issue an apology, and footage of the incident has now been removed from LBC's social media platforms. 'As with all the texts and messages that I read out on the programme, I did so in good faith,' said O'Brien. 'But the message has understandably upset a lot of people, and I regret taking those unsubstantiated claims at face value and am genuinely sorry for that.' Of course, being a talk show host necessitates heated debate and disagreement. But this appeared to be O'Brien indulging shock jock tactics, airing the type of conspiracy that he would typically rail against. Political ambiguity For all his divisiveness, O'Brien's own politics are somewhat undefined. He has described himself as liberal (not Lib Dem) and he is far from being a Left-wing firebrand or Corbynista (last week he said he couldn't defend Diane Abbott after she recanted her comments about Jews not being subject to racism equivalent to people of colour – describing Abbott's remarks as 'objectively stupid'). His adoptive father was a journalist who once worked for The Telegraph, and O'Brien's own career spanned stints at The Daily Mail, The Express, The Spectator and BBC's Newsnight. His technique on LBC is to position himself as someone who wants to uncover the truth or say the unsayable – to challenge the mainstream media, whether that be Conservative-leaning newspapers or the BBC. It is his job to provoke reactions from his listeners, but it's as much his manner as his content that divides opinion. Brexit's loudest critic O'Brien is best known as a standard bearer for Remainers over Brexit, and one of the most persistent and polarising voices on the fall-out from Britain's decision to leave the EU. The prominence of Brexit, especially from 2019 onwards, coincided with his and LBC's ability to exploit social media. O'Brien's confrontational soliloquies or exchanges with callers regularly go viral, expanding his reach beyond his weekly audience of 1.5 million. This statement from his show from May this year is typical: 'I've enjoyed nothing more over the last few years than explaining to you the reality that has been either completely ignored or misunderstood by almost every other corner of the UK media, including many beloved colleagues on this station, some of whom asked you to stop talking about Brexit, which is a demonstration of ignorance visible from space.' His style – sometimes characterised as patronising – has been parodied most effectively by the impressionist Tony Lapidus, who manages to convey both O'Brien's over-familiarity and ability to verbally outmanoeuvre callers. 'At 10 o'clock he eases himself into his very own Star Chamber, wig in place, and casts a practised eye over the miscreants he has lined up for his daily exercise,' wrote Michael Henderson in The Critic magazine in 2022. 'Nobody is quite as clever as he, nor as public-spirited. His rebukes are coated with sarcasm and exasperation but as he falls short of top-notch intelligence, and has a limited vocabulary, his barbs rarely wound as he would like.' O'Brien has long been cited as a spokesman for 'Centrist Dads'. His interventions are often anti-Trump and anti-Reform, as well as continuing to attack Brexit. He castigates anyone who strays from centrist orthodoxies as ignorant or ill-intentioned. In August last year, he called the riots following the Southport murders 'The Farage Riots' in reference to the Reform leader. (His labelling of the unrest attracted numerous complaints. Ofcom did not uphold them.) Farage said in response: 'At no point in the past 30 years have I ever encouraged violence or the use of undemocratic means… and yet we have LBC presenters like James O'Brien calling them 'The Farage Riots''. O'Brien wrote a virtual Centrist Dad manifesto in the form of his book trilogy How To Be Right, How Not To Be Wrong and How They Broke Britain, the titles of which only further irritated his detractors. He said of How They Broke Britain: 'I hope this book becomes some sort of Rosetta Stone, or at least a compass to navigate the oceans of bullshit.' This is not O'Brien's first self-induced crisis O'Brien is often seen in the studio rubbing his head with frustration, as if the combined obligations of listening to the views of the public and having to set them straight is about to break him at any moment. It is, however, a very effective media persona. His mid-morning show, broadcast after that of Right-leaning Nick Ferrari's At Breakfast, is the most popular on LBC. Asked about O'Brien's approach, Matt Deegan, a radio industry expert and host of The Media Club podcast, says: 'It's always been fun to put down callers and let them fall into traps. There is a good apocryphal quote from the New York radio legend Howard Stern, which is something like 'People who hate me listen longer than the people who like me'. Sometimes people tune in to be offended.' Before this week, O'Brien has mostly managed to tread the line between leaning into disagreement and becoming embroiled in scandal. But this isn't the first time that he has found himself in a self-induced crisis. From 2014, O'Brien was a vocal supporter of the later convicted paedophile and fraudster Carl Beech, who made unfounded claims of sexual abuse against numerous politicians and public figures, including the former Conservative MP Harvey Proctor and former Home Secretary Leon Brittan. Especially damning was the prominent support his show gave to Mark Watts, editor of the now defunct Exaro news organisation, who was at the time leading the campaign supporting the accusations made by Beech, many of which did huge personal damage to the falsely accused and their families. In 2015, O'Brien commented: 'Words like 'cover-up' spring to mind. Words like 'conspiracy' spring to mind.' In a series of exchanges with Watts at the time, he cast doubt over the commitment of the 'mainstream media' and Britain's political establishment to address Beech's alleged revelations. Four years later, in September 2019, Beech was jailed for 18 years on 12 counts of perverting the course of justice, one of fraud, and for several child sexual offences. There is no suggestion O'Brien knew of Beech's crimes while he was defending him – far from it – but Beech's eventual conviction still cast a shadow over someone whose career is based on being 'right'. O'Brien would later say on X: 'Hate the Carl Beech story. We gave his allegations against dead politicians a lot of coverage on the show & it turns out he was bulls---ing everyone. But from Rotherham to Westminster to the BBC, telling abuse survivors that they'll be believed still seems the right thing to do. 'There will always be accusations of bias over a long period of time if you do a show every day on subjects people feel very passionate about,' says Deegan. 'Hosting a three-hour live show means you have to keep things interesting and express a lot of opinions.' Selective firepower Certainly, O'Brien doesn't seem short of opinions or a willingness to air them. But while he is adept at taking down callers whose arguments he sees as flimsy or foolish, he seems less interested in the knotty business of offering coherent alternatives. In stark contrast to the Brexit debate, he has been far less strident on trans issues, for example, saying in 2023: 'If someone believes that they were born in the wrong body, I don't want to call them a liar. And if somebody believes that their personal security is threatened by that person using the same amenities that they use, I don't want to call them a liar either.' It is his apparent self-righteousness, whether he chooses to come down firmly on one side or not, that perhaps alienates his opponents above all. 'There are lots of opportunities for us to dedicate ourselves to evidence and fact, while the age seems to be dedicated to promoting idiots and falsehood and disinformation,' O'Brien said in May this year.
Shafaq News
6 days ago
- Politics
- Shafaq News
Israeli minister calls for Jewish Gaza
Israeli Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu has drawn sharp condemnation after calling for Gaza to be 'wiped out' and resettled exclusively with Jews. Speaking to Israeli radio station Kol Barama, Eliyahu praised what he described as the government's effort to 'wipe out this evil,' referring to Gaza's population as one 'educated on Mein Kampf,' Adolf Hitler's manifesto. He added that future Jewish towns in the Strip 'won't be fenced in inside cantons.' Opposition leader Yair Lapid denounced the remarks as 'a moral attack and an explanatory disaster that severely damages Israel's credibility,' stressing that 'Israeli soldiers are not dying to exterminate civilians, but to secure hostages and protect the country's safety." דברי השר אליהו הם פיגוע ערכי ואסון הסברתי. ישראל לעולם לא תשכנע את העולם בצדקת המלחמה שלנו נגד הטרור כל עוד מובילה אותנו ממשלת מיעוט קיצונית עם שרים שמקדשים דם ומוות.לוחמי צה"ל לא נלחמים, נהרגים ונפצעים כדי למחוק אוכלוסיה אזרחית. הם נלחמים כדי להחזיר את החטופים ולהבטיח את… — יאיר לפיד - Yair Lapid (@yairlapid) July 24, 2025 Eliyahu, a member of the ultranationalist Otzma Yehudit party—often described as 'racist' for its openly anti-Arab stance—made the remarks as international scrutiny intensifies over Israel's stated objectives in Gaza, where hunger now grips the entire population. On Thursday alone, 17 Palestinians were reported killed, including three while seeking aid.
