Some McGill students say their right to express support for Palestinians is being suppressed, after a Quebec court temporarily put a stop to a student plan to adopt a pro-Palestinian policy at the university.

Quebec Superior Court issued a safeguard order Tuesday, preventing the student union from moving forward until the court can hear arguments from both sides on March 25, 2024.

A McGill student — who remains anonymous and is represented by a lawyer working for Jewish advocacy group B’nai Brith Canada — filed an injunction to stop the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) from adopting a “policy against genocide in Palestine” that was approved in a referendum this week.

The policy calls on McGill University to cut ties with people, corporations and institutions that are “complicit in genocide, settler-colonialism, apartheid, or ethnic cleansing against Palestinians.”  

About 35 per cent of eligible students voted in the referendum Monday. Of the 8,401 students who voted, 78.7 per cent (5,974 students) were in favour of the policy, 1,620 voted against it and 807 abstained.

Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights McGill (SPHR), a student group, said in a statement to CBC News that the court order sets a “dangerous precedent for student democracy and undermines the supposedly democratic structure of Canadian institutions.”

In a response for a request for comment, a member of the SSMU executive committee forwarded an email to CBC alleging that B’nai Brith and the Israeli consulate have publicly identified some McGill students involved in the pro-Palestinian movement, putting them in danger.

The member asked not to be named because they were concerned about their personal safety.

B’nai Brith’s Quebec regional director, Henry Topas, denies the accusation and says that it has never intimidated or harassed a member of the SSMU or another student group such as the SPHR.

“We are here only simply to protect the rights and ensure the safety of the Jewish students at McGill University who we believe are being constantly harassed and intimidated, physically and verbally,” said Topas.

The organization has an app where people can self-report hate incidents which are then tabulated into its annual audit of antisemitic incidents. Topas says the information gathered is not shared with third parties. 

The email said that exposing students is unfair since they “do not have the same resources for legal representation.”

The move, states the email, has caused “great and unnecessary distress” to students and the union.

Human rights lawyer Pearl Eliadis says that in court cases, power imbalances are often disproportionate, but there is a mechanism in place to prevent parties from abusing their status.

She also says the court order is just a way of pressing pause.

“This is simply a safeguard order where the parties have both agreed and particularly the Students’ Society of McGill University has agreed to hold off on the ratification of the vote until the court hears the injunction,” she said. “There has been no decision on the merits of the case.”

Still, SPHR cited the use of the court as a strategy for intimidating Palestinian organizers and anti-Zionist Jews and suppressing the Palestinian movement.

B’nai Brith Canada pleased

Topas says B’nai Brith Canada welcomed the court order and he described the student referendum question as “continuity of singling out the state of Israel.”  

“Year after year, there is some form of referendum or question that they [SSMU] have people vote on to basically condemn Israel where they would not condemn other countries,” said Topas. 

Topas added that while B’nai Brith acknowledges “collateral civilian suffering” in Gaza, Israel must defend itself following the murders of 1,200 Jews. 

“To turn it around and say there is genocide being committed in Gaza is nonsense,” he said. 

Gaza’s Hamas-run government has said at least 13,300 Palestinians have been killed, including at least 5,500 children, by unrelenting Israeli bombardment. 

In the 2022 winter semester, the SPHR submitted the “Palestine solidarity policy,” which also called on the university to boycott and divest from “all corporations complicit in settler-colonial apartheid against Palestinians.” It passed with 71.1 per cent approval from students but was not ratified. 

At the time, McGill administration said the “Palestine solidarity policy” was inconsistent with the students’ society’s constitution. Ultimately, the SSMU board of governors agreed, saying the policy did not follow the SSMU constitution and could not be adopted. 

Last year, McGill warned the SSMU off adopting “contentious” policies about Palestinians and threatened to cut funding and even ban it from using the school name.

A spokesperson for the university said in a statement Wednesday that McGill administration maintains that the latest policy, if adopted, will “sharpen divisions in our community at a time when many students are already distressed.”

Source : CBC

The post Quebec Superior Court Halts Adoption of Pro-Palestinian McGill Student Union Policy appeared first on Policy Print.

Washington, DC – The agreement between Israel and Hamas to pause the fighting in Gaza and release dozens of captives highlights the power of diplomacy and creates an opening to end the violence, advocates in the United States say.

But they stress that the truce is not sufficient, with many pledging to continue pressuring the administration of US President Joe Biden to pursue a long-term ceasefire.

“This is an important break in the fighting. It’s important that these families are reunified,” said Hassan El-Tayyab, legislative director for Middle East policy at the advocacy group Friends Committee on National Legislation.

“But it’s not enough. We have to continue building momentum to reach a permanent ceasefire, a return of all the hostages, unfettered aid access and a solution for peace for Israelis and Palestinians.”

The deal will see Hamas release 50 women and children held in Gaza, and Israel free 150 Palestinian women and children from its prisons. The exchange will be accompanied by a four-day pause in the fighting and an increased delivery of humanitarian aid into the besieged Palestinian territory.

The agreement, which was approved by the Israeli government late on Tuesday, is expected to go into effect on Friday. It will mark the first stop in the fighting since the war broke out.

Biden welcomes deal

Israel has pledged to continue its military campaign after the pause. But El-Tayyab stressed that “more war” is not the answer, and that there is no military solution to the crisis.

“The question is: Will we fall back to where we were for the past six weeks, with indiscriminate bombing and civilians dying and the hostages being held?” he told Al Jazeera.

“Or are we going to take a step forward towards more negotiations, an extended truce, to get everybody home and finally resolve some of the underlying issues that are creating the cycles of violence, which include the systemic oppression of Palestinians?”

President Biden welcomed the deal and thanked Qatar and Egypt for helping to broker it. He also applauded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a statement on Wednesday.

“I appreciate the commitment that Prime Minister Netanyahu and his government have made in supporting an extended pause to ensure this deal can be fully carried out and to ensure the provision of additional humanitarian assistance to alleviate the suffering of innocent Palestinian families in Gaza,” Biden said. He did not comment on the future of the conflict.

The Biden administration has been calling for “humanitarian pauses” in the war while firmly rejecting demands for a ceasefire, at least until Israel achieves its stated goal of eliminating Hamas.

A truce or a pause is a temporary halt of fighting for an agreed-upon period of time — in this case, four days. A ceasefire is an indefinite end to hostilities that often comes with a negotiated agreement between the warring parties.

Nancy Okail, president of the Center for International Policy, a US-based think tank, called the truce a “step in the right direction”.

She said the pause could be used to deliver aid to Palestinians in Gaza, push for a lasting ceasefire and ensure the safety of humanitarian workers, medics and journalists.

“This would be important not just for the immediate objective of helping secure the release of the hostages but also to save lives and stop the bloodshed,” Okail told Al Jazeera.

‘Allow the truth to come out’

More than 14,500 people have been killed in Gaza since Israel launched its offensive in response to the October 7 Hamas attack that killed 1,200 Israelis.

Hamas also took more than 200 people captive from Israel. Thousands of Palestinians are in Israeli jails, including hundreds of children, many of whom are held in so-called administrative detention without formal charges.

The scale of the violence in Gaza has prompted many scholars and United Nations experts to warn of the risk of genocide.

The Israeli army has forcibly displaced most of the population in the north of the territory — more than one million residents — raising concerns about the possible ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, especially if they are not allowed to return to their homes.

Okail said the halt in violence should extend to the West Bank, where more than 200 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces and settlers since October 7.

If the fighting resumes, Okail also explained that she would like to see the US take a firm stance against any war crimes, including the use of collective punishment, civilian hostages and indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas.

“The Biden administration should also draw a clear red line around the use of US-supplied arms and make clear that there will be consequences if those weapons are not used in accordance with international law,” Okail added.

The White House and Pentagon have repeatedly said that they would not draw any “red lines” to restrict the Israeli operation in Gaza and how American arms are used.

Israel receives $3.8bn in US aid annually. Biden is seeking more than $14bn in additional assistance for Israel this year.

Leading rights groups like Amnesty International, however, have accused Israel of imposing apartheid on Palestinians. But the appeals for Biden to rein in Israeli abuses appear to be going unheard.

Politico reported late on Tuesday that the Biden administration is concerned that the pause “would allow journalists broader access to Gaza and the opportunity to further illuminate the devastation there and turn public opinion on Israel”.

Against that backdrop, El-Tayyab called for independent observers to assess the carnage of Gaza.

“We need to allow the truth to come out. If the truth leads the public to say: This is a war we don’t want to be a part of, then we have to let the chips fall where they may,” he told Al Jazeera.

‘No backbone whatsoever’

Rights advocates have also expressed fear that renewed bombing after the truce might target southern Gaza, which has become more densely populated since the start of the war, as families flee bombings and other attacks.

But Biden’s support for Israel is not expected to waver after the pause.

​​Juan Cole, professor of history at the University of Michigan, said Biden’s green light for the war is one of the main reasons the Israeli campaign “has gone on for this unspeakably long period”.

“My reading of the Netanyahu government is that they’re incorrigible, that nothing would stand in their way if they want to start back up the destruction,” Cole told Al Jazeera.

“And then President Biden has shown himself to have no backbone whatsoever when trying to stand up to Netanyahu.”

Cole noted that Netanyahu has been under pressure from the captives’ families to accept the deal, despite opposition from his far-right political allies. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, for instance, called the agreement “immoral”.

Despite the push in some right-wing circles for the relentless bombing to continue, Israel does not appear close to destroying Hamas. The Palestinian group continues to fight Israeli troops in northern Gaza, killing dozens of soldiers since the ground invasion began.

Hamas’s top political and military leadership remains intact as well.

It’s not clear how and if Israel can eliminate Hamas militarily and what would come after the group if it were destroyed. Hamas has controlled Gaza since 2007.

That’s why many progressive activists in the US are urging a political solution to end the violence — one that goes beyond the current deal.

Usamah Andrabi, communications director at Justice Democrats, a progressive group, called for the US to end its unconditional support for the Israeli government that “continues to openly tell us its plans to annihilate and displace the Palestinian people”.

Andrabi said the pause is a temporary but necessary reprieve from the “incessant bombing and destruction by the Israeli government”, which will allow for the release of captives.

“But we cannot let up on our demands for a permanent ceasefire,” Andrabi told Al Jazeera.

Sandra Tamari, the executive director of Adalah Justice Project, an advocacy group, echoed Andrabi’s comments. She said the halt is simply a “pause of genocide”.

“How can we settle for a pause to that kind of violence? We have to continue to push the US government to call for a complete ceasefire,” Tamari told Al Jazeera.

Source : Al Jazeera

The post ‘Important but Not Enough’: What Does Israel-Hamas Deal Mean for US Policy? appeared first on Policy Print.

Montreal, Canada – More than a month into its bombardment of Gaza, the Israeli military issued a warning: Ground troops had surrounded the largest hospital in the Palestinian enclave, al-Shifa. A raid would be launched “in minutes”.

The impending siege of the Gaza City health complex sparked panic among the thousands of injured patients, medical staff and displaced Palestinians sheltering there.

But amid urgent international pleas to protect Gaza’s hospitals, much of the focus in Canada was on the tougher tone of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

“I have been clear: The price of justice cannot be the continued suffering of all Palestinian civilians. Even wars have rules,” Trudeau said in a news conference on November 14, around the time the al-Shifa raid began.

“I urge the government of Israel to exercise maximum restraint,” he continued, offering his toughest comments since the war began. For weeks, Trudeau had been ignoring calls – and some of Canada’s largest protests in recent memory – demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

“The world is watching. On TV, on social media, we’re hearing the testimonies of doctors, family members, survivors, kids who’ve lost their parents. The world is witnessing this. The killing of women and children – of babies; this has to stop.”

The response from Tel Aviv was swift. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reacted publicly to Trudeau’s speech, arguing on social media that the Palestinian group Hamas, not Israel, was responsible for any civilian casualties. Netanyahu pointed to Hamas’s attacks in southern Israel on October 7, one of the events that precipitated the war.

Pro-Israel lobby groups in Canada echoed that argument, saying “the blood of dead babies – Israeli and Palestinian – is on Hamas” and accusing Trudeau of fuelling anti-Semitism.

In the days that followed, Canadian ministers sought to temper Trudeau’s comments.

“The prime minister, quite understandably, is concerned about innocent lives on both sides of that border,” Defence Minister Bill Blair told the Canadian network CTV. “We’ve also been crystal clear: Israel has the right to defend itself.”

The episode is one of many examples in recent weeks of what observers have described as Canada’s “schizophrenic” foreign policy when it comes to Israel and Palestine.

“Whenever [Trudeau] does show any mettle with respect to this, he invariably then steps back from what he said after any sort of criticism coming from either the Israel lobby in Canada or Israeli leaders,” Michael Lynk, a former United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, told Al Jazeera.

Unlike its powerful neighbour and Israel’s foremost backer, the United States, Canada says it aims to tread the middle ground in its policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It supports a two-state solution, opposes illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied territories and says international law must be respected by all parties.

But experts say Canada has two policies when it comes to the conflict: one on paper and one in practice.

They note that Canada has cast UN votes against its own stated positions and opposed Palestinian efforts to seek redress at the International Criminal Court, and argue that it has backed hardline, Israeli policies and failed to hold the country accountable for rights abuses.

“This government, as well as previous Canadian governments, have unfortunately had a blind spot with respect to Israel,” said Farida Deif, Canada director at Human Rights Watch.

She added that Canada’s stance has not changed despite the nearly two-month-long military campaign in Gaza, where bombs have struck hospitals, refugee camps and schools serving as shelters. More than 15,200 Palestinians have been killed.

“What we’ve seen with respect to Canada’s policy on Israel-Palestine is really a lack of coherence, confusion, and essentially not really engaging with the reality on the ground,” she told Al Jazeera. “And the reality on the ground that we’ve seen – that Palestinian organisations, Israeli organisations, international organisations have documented – is the reality of apartheid and persecution.”

So what drives Canada’s position?

Al Jazeera spoke to nearly a dozen human rights advocates, politicians, former officials and other experts about how foreign and domestic calculations influence Ottawa’s stance – and whether public outrage could shift its strategy.

Canada has had close ties to Israel for years. It recognised the country shortly after it was founded in 1948 and established an embassy there not long after.

The two countries have had a free-trade agreement in place since 1997, with two-way trade totalling 1.8 billion Canadian dollars ($1.3bn) in 2021. Last year, Canada also exported 21.3m Canadian dollars ($15.7m) worth of weapons to Israel.

Some observers argue that the countries enjoy a natural affinity because of the similar ways in which they were created. Like Israel, Canada was built on the dispossession and forced removal of Indigenous peoples from their lands.

But relations truly flourished during the almost decade-long tenure of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. “Canada and Israel are the greatest of friends and the most natural of allies,” Harper said in a speech to the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, in 2014.

A year later, the Conservatives would lose to Trudeau’s Liberal Party in the federal elections, ending Harper’s tenure.

Yet, while Harper’s support for Israel was largely motivated by right-wing, Christian ideology, Trudeau and his more centrist government appear driven by political pragmatism.

Part of that pragmatism stems from Canada’s need to maintain good relations with the US, the country’s largest trading partner and most important ally, according to Peter Larson, chair of the nonprofit Ottawa Forum on Israel/Palestine.

“Canadian policymakers make a political calculation that coming out strongly or critical of Israel or supportive of the Palestinians is likely to get the Americans angry with us,” Larson said.

The government’s perspective, he said, was that Canada has “no control” over what happens in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. “We have no purchase there, we have no trade there, we have no military there. So why in the world would we get the Americans mad at us when we can’t really do anything anyway?”

Michael Bueckert, vice president of the advocacy group Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME), agreed. “Every time we see an indication of a policy position [from Canada], it’s closely following whatever the US says,” he told Al Jazeera.

He pointed out that Canada has continued to mirror US positions during the war in Gaza.

“It just seems like everything that Canada does is triangulated based on what the US and Israel are saying,” Bueckert said. “That’s more important to them than being aligned with all other members of the UN, for example, or every humanitarian agency, or a majority of Canadian public opinion.”

Yet sources with knowledge of the government’s inner workings say that domestic politics is the primary driver behind Canada’s position. One of the most important factors, they maintain, is the pro-Israel lobby.

Corey Balsam, national coordinator of Independent Jewish Voices Canada, an advocacy organisation, said the lobby groups have an “unmatched” ability “to be in the room” with political decision-makers.

“The lobby writ large is very well-resourced and influential and well-placed,” he said.

That has forced the Liberal government to weigh whether their decisions will spark a backlash among pro-Israel lobby groups, which could lose them votes, notably to their Conservative rivals, Balsam said.

“I don’t know exactly the calculations that they’re making, but these are the things that they pay attention to – votes in certain ridings [electoral districts], for instance. Also funds and fundraising for the party, I think this is a big factor for them.”

Lynk, the former UN special rapporteur and Canadian law professor, also said Ottawa’s position on the conflict relates in large part to “who has access to the corridors of power”.

The Trudeau government attacked Lynk’s UN appointment at the outset in 2016, as did pro-Israel lobby groups, which put out statements arguing that he had an anti-Israel bias. Green Party leader Elizabeth May and Lynk’s colleagues at Western University in Ontario came to his defence, but the damage was done.

“I tried to engage with as high a level of political and diplomatic decision-makers as I could. I didn’t get very far [in Canada],” he told Al Jazeera.

“What I was trying to do is say, ‘I’m showing you what international law says. I’m showing you what, in fact, your own foreign policy ends up saying … Why is your foreign policy so schizophrenic when it comes to Israel and Palestine?’ Doors weren’t open for me.”

Several people Al Jazeera spoke to for this story described a pervasive fear of being accused of anti-Semitism for speaking out on Israeli rights abuses.

“There’s a certain weight [to anti-Semitism accusations] that is instrumentalised,” said Balsam.

“I think racism influences whose complaints are taken more seriously and whose pain is taken more seriously more broadly,” he added. “Complaints that invoke anti-Semitism – whether or not it is actually anti-Semitism – are taken seriously, whereas on the other hand, with Muslim and Arab groups or Palestinian groups and individuals, they can be much more easily brushed off.”

During the Gaza war, nowhere has Canada’s position been more clearly on display than at the United Nations. After the UN Security Council failed to pass any resolution to address the situation, the focus shifted in late October to the General Assembly, where a non-binding motion was put forward to urge a humanitarian truce.

The measure passed with overwhelming support, but Canada abstained. It also put forward an amendment to the resolution to condemn Hamas.

“Unfortunately, Canada cannot support the text as it is currently proposed. We cannot act as the UN General Assembly without recognising the horrible events of October 7 and without condemning the terrorists behind them,” Canada’s UN ambassador, Bob Rae, said as he presented the amendment on October 27. It failed.

Peggy Mason, president of the Rideau Institute, an Ottawa-based nonprofit, said whereas Canada previously was seen as a bridge-building country, the amendment was a “bridge-weakening exercise”.

“And it was unconscionable, in my view, in the context of efforts to curtail an unfolding humanitarian crisis of horrific dimensions,” she told Al Jazeera.

Canada came under even closer scrutiny when its UN mission voted against a draft resolution on November 9 condemning Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories as illegal – even though the government’s stated position is that the settlements violate international law.

In a statement explaining the vote, Canada said it was concerned by the number of resolutions that “unfairly single out Israel” at the General Assembly every year.

“Canada reiterates the importance of a fair-minded approach at the United Nations and will continue to vote ‘no’ on resolutions that do not address the complexities of the issues,” the statement read.

According to Bueckert of CJPME, no one is buying that excuse. “They’ve created this rationale for it, but good luck convincing Canadians of this, that these actions make any sense. That it makes sense to vote against things that you say you support,” he told Al Jazeera.

The resolution to condemn the Israeli settlements is among a number of Palestinian-related motions that come up for a vote at the UN General Assembly every year.

And the way Canada votes on these resolutions is dictated by the prime minister’s office, according to a source familiar with the matter, who spoke to Al Jazeera on condition of anonymity in order to speak freely.

“It’s unusual that the [prime minister] would directly intervene on an issue before the United Nations,” the source said. Usually, foreign policy files are handled by Canada’s foreign affairs department, known as Global Affairs Canada.

Lynk, the former UN expert, also told Al Jazeera that most foreign policy issues “are decided at Global Affairs and rarely ever make it to the prime minister’s office for yea or nay”. But matters related to Israel and Palestine are different. They are “determined and directed out of the prime minister’s office”, Lynk said.

Meanwhile, the anonymous source said Canada’s UN mission has faced direct pressure from pro-Israel lobbyists. That person described a meeting years ago in which a top lobbyist urged Canada to change its votes. The mission told the lobbyist no, but 24 hours after their meeting, the prime minister’s office directed the mission to vote the way the lobbyist had wanted.

“I thought it was outrageous, and I was angry and offended,” the source said. “It’s not the way to run a country. It’s not the way to run a foreign policy.”

Trudeau’s office redirected Al Jazeera’s question on whether it handles Canada’s UN votes to Global Affairs Canada. Global Affairs Canada did not answer the question when pressed by Al Jazeera.

“When it comes to votes at the UN, Canada reiterates the importance of a fair-minded approach,” the department said in an emailed statement.

“We will continue to vote no on resolutions that do not address the complexities of the issues or address the actions of all parties. We also remain opposed to the disproportionate singling out of Israel for criticism. Canada rejects the suggestion that there is any kind of ‘double standard’ at play.”

Many people Al Jazeera spoke to said there is a growing sense that the Canadian government’s position on the Israel-Palestine conflict could change in the face of shifting demographics.

“As Parliament gets more diverse and has connections to different communities, I do think that the calculus – in terms of, ‘Is this going to hurt me or help me electorally?’ – is shifting,” said Bueckert.

“It clearly hasn’t shifted enough to change Canada’s position in a meaningful way, but that is how we can make sense of the change in tone where Canada at least has to appear to care about what’s happening to people in Gaza.”

Since the war began, there also has been a split within the Liberal Party between politicians who staunchly support Israel and those calling for a ceasefire despite Trudeau’s own reticence to do so.

Less than two weeks into the Israeli military operation, Liberal MP Salma Zahid, who represents a district east of Toronto, Canada’s largest city, stood up in the House of Commons to urge Ottawa to call for a ceasefire.

“It’s very, very important that Canada be a strong voice to call for a ceasefire and make sure that we put an end to the killing of these innocent civilians,” she told Al Jazeera in a phone interview in November.

Asked about divisions within her own party, Zahid said the Liberal Party is a “big tent” and that all views can and should be heard. But she said she aims to represent her constituents, many of whom are Muslim Canadians.

“Some people have called me a terrorist sympathiser. That is sad to see that. But I will not stop because of these comments on social media or anything. I think it is really very important that I be there as a strong voice for the Palestinian people and also for the community,” Zahid said.

Uthman Quick, communications director at the National Council of Canadian Muslims, said a recent poll showed the disconnect between public opinion and the Liberal government’s positions.

The poll, released by the Angus Reid Institute on November 7, found that 30 percent of Canadians said they wanted an immediate ceasefire, compared with 19 percent who did not. Among Liberal voters, 34 percent supported a ceasefire compared with 12 percent who were opposed.

While Quick said the federal government’s tone has shifted since the war began, rhetoric alone is not enough. “For the amount of violence and killing that we’ve seen in Gaza, I think that warrants a more drastic approach from our government to really call for peace and for a ceasefire,” he told Al Jazeera.

He also said the government’s position could lead to political ramifications that extend beyond Arab and Muslim communities, as anti-war protests draw people of all backgrounds. “It’s not just a purely Muslim slash Palestinian slash Arab community divide on electoral fronts,” Quick said.

According to Deif at Human Rights Watch, Canada should be trying to pursue a “consistent policy” rooted in international law – and condemn war crimes regardless of who is responsible and who is the victim. It also should suspend weapons sales to Israel so long as “Israeli forces commit widespread, serious abuses against Palestinian civilians with impunity”.

“What we would like to see is Canada engaging on Israel-Palestine in the way that Ambassador Bob Rae engaged on Myanmar and the Rohingya crisis, in the same way that [Foreign] Minister [Melanie] Joly engaged on Ukraine following the Russian invasion,” she told Al Jazeera.

The consequences of inaction, she added, can be devastating.

“When powerful governments, whether it’s Canada or other Western states, turn a blind eye to the Israeli government’s abuses and serious violations of international humanitarian law, it certainly sends a message that it can continue to commit those acts.”

Source : Al Jazeera

The post Israel, Palestine and Canada’s ‘Schizophrenic Foreign Policy’ appeared first on Policy Print.

Sameh Shoukry, Egypt’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, condemned on Saturday the killings of civilians in Gaza, saying that they cannot be justified by Israel’s claim of self-defence. He also criticized Israel’s policy of collective punishment, targeting of civilians and forced displacement of Palestinians.

Shoukry spoke at a press conference with the foreign ministers of Jordan and the United States after the Arab-American ministerial meeting in Amman on the developments in the situation in Gaza. He called for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in Gaza and urged the international community to stop applying double standards to the Palestinian issue.

The foreign minister said that the number of civilian casualties in Gaza was unacceptable and demanded an immediate halt to the Israeli aggression. He reiterated Egypt’s firm rejection of any attempts to undermine the Palestinian cause or the rights of the Palestinian people.

He also stressed the need to revive the peace process based on the two-state solution and to launch an international investigation into the violations committed by Israel in the Gaza Strip.

Shoukry said that Egypt was doing everything possible to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip and to provide medical assistance to the wounded civilians. He added that Egypt faced many obstacles in its efforts, but would continue to work for the sake of peace and stability in the region.

He said that Egypt and the United States had many points of agreement on the need to stop the war and protect the civilians, and that Egypt would always cooperate with the United States on this matter.

Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi echoed Shoukry’s sentiments, saying that the war in Gaza was against all religions and human values. He said that the war crimes committed by Israel in the Gaza Strip must stop and that Israel must not enjoy impunity from accountability.

He called for an immediate ceasefire and an end to the destruction caused by the war. He rejected Israel’s characterization of its actions as self-defense, saying that it would not bring security to Israel or peace to the region.

US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken affirmed on Saturday that the United States aimed to end the crisis in the Gaza Strip and to achieve a lasting peace in the region. He expressed his gratitude to Egypt and Jordan for their hard work on the two-state solution and their dedication to achieving a safer and more stable Middle East.

Blinken expressed his concern over the escalation in the West Bank and said that the United States condemned the violence and called for holding the perpetrators accountable. He said that the United States believed that the two-state solution was the best way to ensure the freedom and dignity of both peoples. He also said that the United States would take some practical steps to advance this goal.

He said that the humanitarian situation in Gaza was very critical and that the United States would work with its partners to ensure the delivery of aid to the Palestinians. He said that the status quo before the war was not sustainable and that the international community had a responsibility to create a new path for a better future. He said that the United States would intensify its efforts to achieve this objective.

US Secretary of State said: “The humanitarian pause is very important to get aid in to the Palestinians; to ensure that people move safely, buildings are rebuilt; and we will continue to work with our partners to ensure that aid gets in.”

Source : Daily News Egypt

The post FM Shoukry Condemns Israel’s Policy of Collective Punishment appeared first on Policy Print.

The EU’s foreign policy chief on Saturday expressed “regret” over the resumption of Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip, emphasizing Tel Aviv’s obligation to respect international humanitarian law and the laws of war, which he described as “not only a moral obligation but also a legal one.”

“The way Israel exercises its right to self-defence matters. It’s imperative that Israel respects International Humanitarian Law and the laws of war,” Josep Borrell wrote on X.

His remarks came after the Israeli army resumed attacks on Gaza after declaring the end of a week-long humanitarian pause on Friday morning, for which Borrell expressed regret, fearing that the already high civilian death toll would rise further.

Reiterating his call for Israel to respect international law, he stressed that this is “not only a moral obligation but a legal one as well.”

He also mentioned the increasing violence in the occupied West Bank. Citing the UN figures, Borrell said 271 Palestinians have been killed by Israelis since Oct. 7.

“It’s not sufficient humanitarian pauses should be resumed, while simultaneously working towards a comprehensive political solution for all the Palestinian territories,” he added.

The Israeli army resumed bombing the Gaza Strip early Friday after ending a week-long humanitarian pause with the Palestinian resistance group Hamas.

At least 178 Palestinians have been killed and 589 injured on Friday in Israeli airstrikes, according to the Gaza Health Ministry.

The humanitarian pause began on Nov. 24 as part of an agreement between Israel and Hamas to temporarily halt fighting to allow hostage swaps and aid delivery.

More than 15,000 Palestinians, mostly children and women, have been killed in Israeli attacks since Oct. 7 following a cross-border attack by Hamas.

Around 1,200 Israelis have also been killed, according to official estimates.

Source : AA

The post EU’s Foreign Policy Chief Regrets Resumption of Attack on Gaza, Urges Israel to Respect Laws of War appeared first on Policy Print.

As campuses across the country continue to erupt in protests over the Israel-Hamas war, a little-known 2019 presidential executive order is expected to fuel a flood of student legal claims against universities.

Attorneys — from a mix of white-shoe corporate firms to Jewish advocacy groups — are meeting with students who say their schools are failing to protect them from antisemitic or anti-Israel conduct.

In 2019, then-President Donald Trump signed an order instructing federal officials to expand the interpretation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include “discrimination rooted in anti-Semitism” as a form of discrimination based on race, color and national origin — prohibited behavior for programs that get federal funding. Trump signed the order amid a series of violent incidents against Jews, including the 2018 killing of 11 congregants in a Pittsburgh synagogue and a 2019 attack that killed three inside a Kosher supermarket in New Jersey.

Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act does not include the word “religion” as a subject of discrimination. Because the law does not list religious characteristics, legal experts say, federal officials have gradually expanded interpretations to include ethnoreligious groups.

Trump told federal agencies “to consider” using the Sweden-based International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, which includes “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel” and “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

The alliance promotes Holocaust education and research, and has come under criticism by both Jewish and non-Jewish groups for suggesting that broad criticism of Israel can be construed as antisemitic.

In January 19, 2021, the day before Trump left office, the U.S. Department of Education, released a five-page questions and answers memo defining what constitutes antisemitism at schools.

An NBC News review of the department’s current investigations showed 15 pending cases related to race or national origin. The most recent filing listed was against Oberlin College in Ohio, dated a week before the Hamas attacks on Israel. Melissa Landa, an alumna of the college, told NBC News that she filed the letter because the school didn’t intervene after a professor taught students that “Israel is an illegitimate settler colonial apartheid regime,” according to Landa.

“I think that students need to file Title VI complaints so that universities can have federal money withheld from them, and maybe that will make them act,” Landa said. “I hope that my Title VI complaint will serve as an example for them.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Education said that since Hamas’ Oct. 7 terrorist attack on Israel, which killed more than 1,400 Israelis, “we have seen an uptick in complaints and the department is assessing them all.”

Lawyers said they have received an overwhelming number of calls from across the country from Jewish college students and their parents requesting representation in Title VI claims. Kenneth Marcus, who ran the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights during the Trump and George W. Bush administrations, said he is getting many calls.

“Oh, my God, I can’t tell you how many campuses we’re dealing with every single day. We have never been so inundated with cases,” said Marcus, who now runs the Brandeis Center for Human Rights, a nonprofit focused on protecting the civil rights of Jews.

In recent years, the Brandeis Center has filed Title VI complaints against the University of Vermont and the State University of New York at New Paltz on behalf of Jewish students who said their universities have allowed antisemitism to fester on campus.

In April, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights said it found that the University of Vermont failed to investigate student claims of antisemitism and did not examine whether the complaints had created a hostile environment for Jewish students.

The University of Vermont signed a resolution agreement with federal officials later that month vowing to enact reforms such as expanding the school’s discrimination policy to include protections for students based on shared ancestry, including antisemitism. In June, the Office for Civil Rights opened a formal investigation into SUNY-New Paltz.

For years, Marcus has also been fighting to broaden Title VI protections to members of other ethnoreligious groups. He said prior to the Trump administration, he wrote guidance memos that said Title VI could be interpreted to include protecting members of other ethnoreligious groups such as Sikhs and Arab Muslims. But in 2019, Trump kept his executive order focused on protecting Jews.

In September, President Joe Biden issued a statement noting that Title VI also prohibits Islamophobic activities in federally funded programs. But the U.S. Department of Education has not released a detailed memo that defines Islamophobia as it has done for antisemitism.

Gadeir Abbas, a senior litigation attorney with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said his team is preparing discrimination complaints on behalf of Muslim and pro-Palestinian students, who he says are being unfairly labeled as Hamas sympathizers or unfairly accused of providing support to terrorists.

“I think that pro-Israel groups, groups that are seeking to marginalize Palestinian voices on campus, see the Title VI claim as a way of attacking not the administration, but the other student groups,” Abbas said. “The idea is that [they’re] going to censor or penalize or punish any advocacy for equal rights of Palestinians.”

As a result, he said, Palestinian students — or students who say they support Palestinian civilians in Gaza — feel vulnerable on campus and in their communities, and some are considering filing their own Title VI claims.

NBC News has reported that bias incidents against Muslims are on the rise. CAIR said that it received 774 reports of bias incidents and requests for help from Muslims across the country from Oct. 7 through Oct. 24, nearly triple the number compared to a similar time period last year.

Abbas said that students, like all Americans, have a right to protest in the United States. “In a conflict between the First Amendment and Title VI, the First Amendment wins,” Abbas said. “Those student groups are participating in lawful activity. They’re recognized willingly by their colleges and universities.”

Three weeks before the Hamas attacks and the subsequent protests on American campuses, Palestine Legal, an advocacy organization for Palestinian rights, filed a Title VI complaint with the U.S. Department of Education. Attorneys demanded a federal investigation after the University of Illinois Chicago barred students “with Arab sounding names” from attending a January 2023 informational session on a university-sponsored Israel study-abroad program.

Legal experts said they expect the largest number of future Title VI cases to be filed against universities by Jewish students. The Anti-Defamation League recently reported that nationwide, “incidents of harassment, vandalism and assault increased by 388 percent over the same period last year.”

One of the most outspoken advocates for Jewish students’ use of Title VI since Oct. 7 has been the Lawfare Project, a nonprofit that represents Jewish clients. Lawfare staffers have met with Jewish students on campuses, posted solicitations for cases in Jewish WhatsApp groups, and used the organization’s social media accounts “End Jew Hatred” to recruit young clients.

“While we always had students reaching out to us, after Oct. 7, that became a flood,” said Lawfare senior counsel Gerard Filitti, while standing on the sidelines of a recent pro-Israel rally at Columbia University. “The phone was ringing nonstop.”

Georgetown Law student Julia Wax, 25, was also at the Columbia rally. Wax said she is in talks with Lawfare to file a Title VI lawsuit against her law school, claiming that pro-Palestinian student organizations on her campus have been publicly supporting Hamas.

“I think in a perfect world, Georgetown would create some sort of an open forum for this conflict to be discussed,” said Wax, adding that she wants Georgetown to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

In February 2020, Lawfare represented one of the first Jewish college students to file a Title VI complaint against a university after Trump’s executive order. Jonathan Karten, then 24, was a Columbia University student who said he was harassed by members of the campus group Students for Justice in Palestine. (The group did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)

Karten’s complaint said students called him “racist” and a “Zionist pig.” Tensions further escalated as professor Joseph Massad, who teaches modern Arab politics and has a history of criticizing Israel, referred to the military wing of Hamas as “armed resistance,” according to the complaint. Karten’s uncle was killed by Hamas militants in 1996 while hitchhiking in Israel.

“My professor endorsed the very same monsters,” Karten, who recently rejoined the Israeli army, said in a WhatsApp message.

The Department of Education declined to comment on the status of the case. 

Karten’s younger brother, Isidore, also a Columbia alumnus, is pressuring the department to do more. Since the Hamas terrorist attacks, he has also helped organize pro-Israel events around the city and says he is frustrated by what he sees as Columbia’s muted response to antisemitism.

On Wednesday, Columbia University announced it was starting an antisemitism task force to come up with changes to academic and extracurricular programs. Columbia spokesperson Samantha Slater said in a statement that the university is beefing up security.

“Over the past few weeks, we have increased our public safety presence across all our campuses,” Slater wrote. “We are also working closely with outside security firms and are in regular contact with the New York City Police Department.”

Isidore Karten said he and other young Jewish activists continue to feel that Columbia can do more. “I don’t think they are doing enough,” he said.

Source : NBC

The post Trump-Era Antisemitism Policy Expected to Fuel Flood of Student Lawsuits Against Universities appeared first on Policy Print.

Israel was not founded by religious Jews. The early Zionists were secular, rational, and uniquely unsentimental about the Jewish condition in late 19^th-century Europe and beyond. They believed that if Jews were to end their tragic two-thousand-year exile, their reliance on God and the fatalism it bred needed to be expunged.

The early Zionists’ focus on secularism seems to have been vindicated by recent events. 

How could the catastrophe on 7 October, which claimed the lives of at least 1,400 Israelis and has left 220 as hostages of Hamas, have happened? How could Israel lose control, over the course of a few hours, of an entire swath of its sovereign territory, including twenty-two kibbutzim and other villages? Beyond the obvious intelligence failure, one reason is that a good portion of the troops in the enlarged division that was meant to be guarding the Gaza border had been redeployed to keep order and protect an ever-expanding archipelago of tiny, often unauthorized West Bank settlements and roads leading to them. The sole purpose of these outposts was to establish a de facto Jewish presence in the West Bank and hence restrict the actions available to future Israeli governments. Objections and warnings by the defence establishment that the military and security services were overstretched, that the army no longer had the requisite forces or the time to train soldiers properly, were dismissed as the defeatism of an old and tired secular elite, by a growing chorus of hyper-patriotic, right-wing zealots, people often with little or no practical military experience. 

For more than a generation, defence policy and much else has been increasingly determined by the dictates of Israel’s religious settler lobby and its Messianic visions. Though not numerous, parties representing the settlers exploited Israel’s system of proportional representation, which magnifies the influence of small, well-organized pressure groups, to effectively capture an entire state. A careful programme of entryism allowed the Likud, too, to become heavily influenced by MKs and party members from the settlements that in no way reflected the party’s broader voter base. 

It is not just the tactical decision-making power of this group over troop deployments that has now collapsed, but their larger strategic vision. This was a belief that by dispersing a population of Jews around the West Bank we could gradually annex it, all the while pretending that we could ignore the presence of three million hostile Palestinians, and the demographic consequences their incorporation would entail. It is in this context that the settlers, and their secular avatar Benyamin Netanyahu, came to view Hamas as a strategic asset, because its radicalism made any efforts to find a compromise, or even merely to contain the conflict, impossible. Suitcases of cash, supplied by Hamas’ Qatari allies no less, could be relied upon to keep Hamas in power but restrained. What better proof was needed that God was on our side?

Yet beyond the failure of both tactics and strategy, it is the cultural effects of this way of thinking—which bred arrogance, complacency, and above all wishful thinking—that has created the greatest threat to Israel in at least fifty years. Religious obscurantists with government portfolios declared that Yeshiva study was as important as military service in protecting Israel from its enemies. Study Torah and God would not forsake us.

God did not intervene to save families like mine in 1939; and in 1973, the small number of surviving tank crews who ultimately stopped the columns of Syrian armour on the Golan Heights knew that only their heroism and sacrifice would protect their families from a similar fate. The kibbutzniks who fought and died trying to protect their communities against the Hamas terrorists on 7 October understood the same thing. One hopeful sign of change is that hundreds of ultraorthodox men, in defiance of their Rabbis and politicians, have now contacted the IDF and asked to be inducted into the reserves.

Netanyahu and his cabinet of Twitter warriors, sycophants and fixers need to go. Now. It is hard to see any of them being able to offer effective leadership during what may be a lengthy conflict, all the while knowing what future official inquiries are likely to reveal about their behaviour these last few months. Even if we exclude the ministers who were serving in the cabinet on the morning of the attack, there are enough people in the Knesset from both the coalition and opposition with serious defence credentials to form an emergency government, including two lieutenant generals (former chiefs of staff), a major general, two brigadier generals, two former chiefs of police, and the former deputy head of the Mossad. There are also people with executive experience in the civilian realm, particularly several former mayors.

And that is just the beginning. Long term, Israel is too vulnerable to be governed by feckless people in the grip of childish fantasies. For nine months, the government has been fixated on replacing Israel’s ill-designed, highly centralised democracy with a new model that would magnify its worst flaws, and passing a series of laws that would exempt it from judicial oversight. 

In the days that followed the attack, survivors and the families of the hostages were left to their own devices. Israelis discovered just how hollowed out and incompetent state institutions had become—hobbled by years of corruption and patronage, proving how badly we need more, not less, accountability and external scrutiny. What did prove robust and filled the vacuum were Israel’s civil society organisations and volunteer networks—precisely the types of institutions that are incompatible with the overbearing system of centralized power the government wished to impose. Indeed, among the most effective have been the movements that brought hundreds of thousands onto the streets in recent months to protest the government’s constitutional machinations. And no one more than the military reservists and retirees of Brothers and Sisters in Arms, who have been at the forefront of the protests to preserve Israel’s liberal democracy from the beginning. 

It was through this network that several retired senior military officers were alerted that morning that Hamas’ terrorists had crossed the first line of defence and were killing people in communities close to the border and the music festival nearby. Men of this type, aged sixty and over, whose first instinct was to grab a gun and drive toward the slaughter to kill terrorists and save random strangers, are not produced in societies governed by strongmen. In Israel, as in Ukraine, democracies foster initiative, improvisation, courage, and resilience rather than conformity and passivity.

The goal of eradicating Hamas as an organisation may prove infeasible. Ensuring it never again governs the Gaza Strip may prove difficult as well, particularly given that the Palestinian Authority that governs much of the West Bank will not wish to be seen to be collaborating with Israel. They will be reluctant to resume control of the territory from which its officials were chased out or killed by Hamas thirteen years ago. Nonetheless, eliminating the physical infrastructure Hamas uses to manufacture rockets that target Israeli cities is achievable. So is killing or capturing some part of Hamas and Islamic Jihad’s terror armies, which together constitute 40,000 individuals. 

The Western press these days is full of warnings about the dangers of any such operation and is essentially lobbying Israel to stand down and agree to an unconditional ceasefire. One hears one commentator after another solemnly affirming Israel’s right to defend itself before asserting that any possible offensive action it might take will constitute a war crime. Though Israel uses precision guided bombs, Gaza’s packed population means that civilians will indeed inevitably be hurt, particularly if Hamas does not let them leave their homes. Cutting off food, water, or even just the electricity Hamas uses to manufacture fresh rockets to launch at Israel, will create a humanitarian disaster. Even the targeting of Hamas officials is deemed to be illegal extra-judicial killing. Needless to say, a ground invasion is treated as out of the question, as civilians will again be in the way. Yet even more nuanced commentators do, rightly, raise valid questions about how much that option will achieve.

Historically, fighting a guerrilla army in a densely populated urban setting exacts a heavy toll on regular troops. Hamas has spent years planning for this type of war. Every house along the plausible invasion routes will be filled with booby traps. Beneath the surface of every road, they will have buried special mines designed to take out tanks and other armoured vehicles. These will be stacked to increase their lethality and make removing them difficult. If all else fails, some fighters can escape capture by changing into civilian clothes and blending in with the civilian population. Warnings that Hamas may be deliberately luring the IDF into a long, bloody, and ultimately unwinnable campaign cannot be completely dismissed. The fate of the hostages and the possibility that Hezbollah, a far more powerful force, might open a second front makes all this more difficult still. Yet the successful fight by the US against Al Qaeda in Fallujah, and the combined efforts by the West and its local allies against ISIS in Mosul and Rakah, teach us that it is possible to defeat the Jihadis.

Furthermore, while many commentators have carefully elaborated the dangers of a ground invasion, they have generally failed to consider the broader implications for Israel should it choose not to invade. First, if Hamas emerges with its forces largely intact, there is nothing to stop it from launching further attacks in the years to come at a moment of its choosing. Others, too, will be emboldened by this Hamas victory. Far from garnering the world’s respect, restraint will be interpreted as weakness. Allies, including the United States, will gradually abandon Israel—no one needs a weak ally. The Arab states may publicly denounce Israel’s aggression, but privately they have much to fear from a Hamas victory and the resurgence of its ideology around the region. Yet Egypt, Jordan, and the UAE have no reason to cooperate with an Israeli state that is unable or unwilling to protect itself, and that has lost the confidence of its own citizens. 

There are also wider implications for the core nations of the West in Europe and North America. In the last two years, Russia and now Iran—through its proxies in Gaza and Lebanon—have each gone to war against members of the West’s democratic alliance. With stocks of ammunition and arms running short, how soon before China and North Korea each do the same against Taiwan and South Korea? Who is to say which parts of the core Western alliance will come under pressure after that? 

In the West, some people on the left complain bitterly about the hyper-individualism and social atomization of modern market-driven societies. But when such people talk about “community” and the “collective good,” some of them seem to mean only such things as safe bike lanes and free yoga classes—not protection from an invading army coming to kill your family. Because we wish to believe that we live in a world where such atrocities can never, ever happen. That blind spot reflects a different sort of religious dogma, equally unmoored from reality. 

As for Israel, the drift towards religious nationalism and the magical thinking it encourages led us to underestimate our enemies and overextend our forces. In 2015 a previous hard-right government led by Netanyahu reduced the period of required military service for men from 36 to 32 months and announced plans to lower it to 30 in the future. The military was forced to condense training schedules to accommodate these changes. In retrospect, militaristic rhetoric was no substitute for more and better trained soldiers. Because despite all our hopes and prayers, there is so far no sign the Messiah is on his way. We are on our own.

Source : Quillette

The post A Generation of Misguided Policy in Israel appeared first on Policy Print.

Thousands of protesters gathered in Washington on Saturday to demand a ceasefire in Gaza where thousands have been killed in an Israeli offensive since an attack by Hamas, and to denounce President Joe Biden’s policy towards the war.

Protesters carried placards with slogans such as “Palestinian Lives Matter,” “Let Gaza Live” and “Their blood is in on your hands,” as the US government continued to reject demands to add its voice to calls for a blanket ceasefire.

Activists called the planned protest a “National March on Washington: Free Palestine” and organized buses to the US capital from across the country for demonstrators to attend, said coalition group ANSWER, an acronym for “Act Now to Stop War and End Racism.”
“What we want and what we demand is a ceasefire now,” said Mahdi Bray, national director of the American Muslim Alliance.

The demonstration was among the largest pro-Palestinian gatherings in the United States and among the biggest for any cause in Washington in recent years, Reuters reported.
Crowds began gathering at Freedom Plaza near the White House in the afternoon before the protest started with a moment of silence as demonstrators held up a large poster with names of Palestinians killed since Israel’s massive retaliation began.

The deep-rooted Israeli-Palestinian conflict reignited on Oct. 7 when scores of fighters from Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, crossed into Israel, killing at least 1,400 people.
Israel has since struck Gaza from the air, imposed a siege and launched a ground assault, stirring global alarm at humanitarian conditions in the enclave. Gaza health officials said at least 9,488 Palestinians had been killed as of Saturday.

The growing number of civilian deaths has intensified international calls for a ceasefire, but Washington, like Israel, has so far dismissed them, saying a halt will give Hamas chance to regroup.

Source : Aawsat

The post Protesters Oppose Biden War Policy in Large Pro-Palestine Rally appeared first on Policy Print.

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., said Saturday that U.S. policy toward Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “doesn’t add up” as Israel’s war against Hamas terrorists continues.

Omar has been critical of Israel’s government since Hamas launched its surprise attack against the Jewish State on Oct. 7.

“U.S. policy is essentially that Netanyahu has no achievable goals in Gaza and a ground invasion risks regional war, including potential US troops. And also we should give him $14 billion in weapons with no restrictions, and say there are no red lines as he bombs refugee camps,” Omar wrote Saturday on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.

“See how this doesn’t add up?” she added.

More than 10,000 people have been killed in Gaza and Israel since Hamas launched its largest attack against Israel in decades on Oct. 7, leading to retaliatory action from Israeli forces. Thousands more have been wounded, and many others have been taken hostage by Hamas and raped, tortured and murdered.

Omar is among more than a dozen progressive Democrats in the House to have co-sponsored a resolution last month calling for a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. She was also one of the more than 20 House members who voted against a separate resolution calling on administrators at U.S. universities to condemn antisemitism on their campuses and to ensure that Jewish faculty and students can exercise free speech without intimidation.

Last week, the White House called for a “humanitarian pause” in the war between Israel and Hamas to allow aid into Gaza, but it has argued against a cease-fire. The Biden administration has strongly supported Israel in its war against Hamas, including backing its right to defend itself and pledging billions in aid.

Netanyahu told U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken in a meeting on Friday that Israel “refuses a temporary cease-fire that does not include the release of our hostages. Israel will not enable the entry of fuel to Gaza and opposes sending money to the Strip,” The Times of Israel reported.

Omar’s comments come after fellow progressive Rep. Rashida, D-Mich., criticized Biden in a video posted to X on Friday, in which she accused the president of “support[ing] the genocide of the Palestinian people” for his administration’s support for Israel. A proposal to censure Tlaib over several statements critical of Israel failed to pass last week.

Source : Fox News

The post Ilhan Omar Criticizes US Policy Toward Israeli PM Netanyahu: ‘doesn’t Add Up’ appeared first on Policy Print.

Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar (D) ripped U.S. policy towards Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Saturday.

“U.S. policy is essentially that Netanyahu has no achievable goals in Gaza and a ground invasion risks regional war, including potential US troops,” Omar said in a post on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. “And also we should give him $14 billion in weapons with no restrictions, and say there are no red lines as he bombs refugee camps.”

“See how this doesn’t add up?” Omar added. 

Omar has called for a cease-fire in the current conflict between Israel and Palestinian militant group Hamas, alongside other progressive lawmakers.

President Biden called for a “pause” in the fighting Wednesday after the White House had said it would consider a “humanitarian pause” to get aid into Gaza. However, it has pushed back against calls for a cease-fire. 

Netanyahu told Secretary of State Antony Blinken (D) in a meeting Friday that his country “refuses a temporary cease-fire that does not include the release of our hostages. Israel will not enable the entry of fuel to Gaza and opposes sending money to the Strip,” according to The Times of Israel. 

Omar’s comments come shortly after her House colleague Rep. Rashida (D-Mich) criticized Biden Friday in a video posted to X, saying he “supported the genocide of the Palestinian people” in relation to his administration’s support for Israel amidst its conflict with Hamas. 

The current conflict between Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas began with a Hamas attack on Israel in early October that left more than 1,400 people dead. Israeli air campaigns and a recent ground offensive in response have left more than 9,200 Palestinians dead, according to the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry. 

Source : The Hill

The post Omar Rips US Policy Toward Israeli PM, Saying It ‘doesn’t Add Up’ appeared first on Policy Print.