Thursday, November 07, 2024

Renewed Strike Mandate for RFA Officers as Wage Dispute Continues

strikes are RFA UK
Nautilus reports members renewed the strike authorization aginst the RFA (Nautilus International)

Published Nov 7, 2024 5:33 PM by The Maritime Executive

 


The long-running wage dispute for the officers, ratings, and shore personnel of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary is being renewed with a new strike mandate. The service which operates the support and supply ships for the UK’s Royal Navy has been in a pay dispute with the unions Nautilus Internation and RMT (National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers) with both unions having staged the first-ever strikes against the government institution.

Nautilus International by law was required to re-ballot members to continue industrial action which began in June 2024 after it was first authorized. The union reports a 63 percent turnout, with 97 percent of members voting for action short of strike and 90 percent voting for strike action. By comparison in the prior vote, 60 percent turned out with 79 percent voting yes to strike action and 85 percent voting yes to action short of strike.

“The mandate for industrial action is now even stronger after the government's failure to put forward a serious pay offer,” said Nautilus director of organizing Martyn Gray. 'With this vote, our members have send the strongest possible message to the government – that they will no longer be ignored, and their hard work and dedication can no longer be taken for granted.”

Last year the UK government implemented a 4.5 percent pay increase for the RFA. The union demanded an increase based on inflation and a history of low increases. They contend that wages have shrunk by 30 percent in real terms since 2010.

Nautilus launched its first strike against the RFA on August 15 impacting vessels in the Far East, the Mediterranean, and those in and around the UK. Nautilus members staged protests near the Cammell Laird shipyard, Birkenhead, Whale Island in Portsmouth, and Portland. It was a one-day strike and followed less than a strike activity including refusing overtime. 

The second strike came on Merchant Navy Day in the UK and coincided with ongoing strike action by the RMT, the union representing ratings at the RFA. The unions have coordinated their efforts both advance the position of the long-term ware disparity for those at the RFA.

The government indicated a willingness to speak but highlighted the broad financial challenges it faces. The unions had hoped to make progress on their demands with the new labour government formed by Sir Keir Starmer in July. 

Despite staging the strikes and a protest at the Labour Conference, where members of the government convened to discuss policy, the unions remain at a standoff over wages for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. While highlighting the new mandate, Nautilus has not announced plans for its next strike or job action against the RFA.
 

TRUMPISTAN
Litman: Will Trump launch a reign of terror against his list of enemies? There's little to stop him

Opinion by Harry Litman


President Nixon with transcripts of White House tapes after he announced that he would turn them over to House impeachment investigators in 1974. The Watergate scandal led to Justice Department reforms that are unlikely to survive the second Trump administration. ((Associated Press))© (Associated Press)


During his ultimately victorious campaign for the presidency, Donald Trump made no bones about his intention to use the legal levers of government to go after his perceived enemies. When he takes office in January, we should therefore expect him to launch a reign of terror against dozens of people he sees as having crossed him. And his vengeance will be enabled by the Supreme Court opinion granting presidents broad immunity from prosecution.

A recent National Public Radio analysis determined that Trump has threatened more than 100 federal investigations or prosecutions to settle scores. They run the gamut from President Biden and his family, whom the president-elect has promised to pay back on Day 1 of his tenure by appointing a special prosecutor to investigate unspecified crimes; to former Rep. Liz Cheney, whom he recently suggested should face something like a firing squad; to judges involved in his prosecutions; and journalists who refuse to give up their sources.

Granted, Trump frequently gives the impression that he has little understanding of or even interest in many of the policies he pressed on the campaign trail. But retribution against his enemies is clearly something that gets him up in the morning. From well before his entry into politics, Trump has been single-minded in intimidating and exacting retribution against his opponents.

A passage from one of his tacky books that was read into evidence at his New York criminal trial declares, “My motto is: Always get even. When somebody screws you, screw them back in spades.”

Trump is in this respect not unique in the annals of the American presidency. The desire to “screw” one’s enemies, a hallmark of the insecure leader, is the impulse that brought down Richard Nixon. Watergate originally sprang from Nixon’s vendetta against Daniel Ellsberg, whom he was determined to embarrass for exposing the Pentagon Papers.

In the wake of Nixon’s abuses, the country put in place a series of laws, regulations and norms designed to prevent government by vengeance. These included a prohibition on White House meddling in Justice Department prosecutions that took on canonical status.

I was a Justice official at the beginning of what became the Whitewater scandal, and it would have been unthinkable at the time for a White House official to try to direct the department to investigate a political enemy. No administration would have dared, and no department official would have acquiesced.

Since Watergate, the only administration that failed to fully respect that principle was Trump’s. His political appointees repeatedly pushed the department to at least provide information about continuing prosecutions. In those difficult years, the department sometimes resisted but sometimes relented. Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland, made it a priority to rebuild the wall between the White House and the Justice Department.

Trump has made it clear that he intends to raze that wall in his first days in office. Working off the blueprint of Project 2025, Trump has announced that he plans to hollow out the department’s career staff and replace them with political appointees who will serve at his pleasure and be loyal to him, not the Constitution.

At that point, there will be no real impediment to the use of federal power for revenge against Trump’s long list of enemies. It will be the opposite of the department’s proud aspiration to do “justice without fear or favor.”

Moreover, Trump has said he will rely on the Supreme Court’s immunity opinion to provide full cover against any legal resistance. When asked recently how he would handle special counsel Jack Smith, who led his two federal prosecutions, Trump replied, "It's so easy — I would fire him within two seconds," adding that he would enjoy “immunity at the Supreme Court.”

The irony and tragedy of Trump’s invocation of the opinion is that the court declared it was ruling not for Trump but “for the ages.” But it is indeed Trump whose unscrupulous ambition it has served. And while the court reasoned that immunity is needed to safeguard aggressive, nimble and presumably lawful presidential action, Trump takes the lesson that he can violate the Constitution with impunity.

The corrupt use of prosecutorial power can amount to a crime. For starters, the federal code criminalizes conspiring to injure any person because of their exercise of constitutional rights or their race. But the Supreme Court has ensured that Trump could carry out unlawful prosecutions: He can commit crimes but can't be made to answer for them.

Trump’s retribution agenda may encounter other roadblocks. Grand juries may not go along with prosecutions that reek of vengeance, and trial juries and judges are more likely to resist.

Also, presidential immunity doesn’t extend to other executive branch officials, and Trump will need confederates in the Justice Department to do his bidding. But with a clear Republican majority in the Senate, Trump is likely to get any senior official he wants confirmed. That could include the likes of the right-wing activist and attorney general hopeful Mike Davis, who wrote Wednesday of Trump’s opponents, “I want to drag their dead political bodies through the streets, burn them, and throw them off the wall. (Legally, politically, and financially, of course.)”

As a practical matter, by far the most important protections against vengeful prosecutions are career federal prosecutors’ nonpartisan professionalism and the norms forbidding the White House from telling them whom to prosecute. Trump is plainly fixing to lay waste to those safeguards. That alone would constitute a giant step away from the rule of law and toward autocracy.

Harry Litman is the host of the “Talking Feds” podcast and the “Talking San Diego” speaker series. @harrylitman

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.


Massachusetts Governor Vows to Refuse Trump Request for Help with Mass Deportations: 'Absolutely Not'


The Democratic governor warned other states of the pressure they will face following Trump's election

By Maryam Khanum
Published 11/07/24

Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey expressed that she would refuse to assist in mass deportations in her state, and warned other states of the pressure they will face. Getty Images

Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey said that she would refuse to assist in mass deportations in her state, and warned states of the pressure they will face to penalize and deport undocumented immigrants.

"If the Trump administration requested, would the Massachusetts State Police assist in mass deportations?" MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell asked the governor.

"No. Absolutely not," Healey responded.

Massachusetts Governor says her state won’t assist with deportations if President Trump’s administration asks.

She says she will protect the illegals in her state. pic.twitter.com/I3oHWmtg8I— Daily Loud (@DailyLoud) November 7, 2024

"I do think it's important that we all recognize that there's going to be a lot of pressure on states and state officials, and I can assure you, we're going to work really hard to deliver," Healey continued.

Former President Donald Trump was declared the winner of the 2024 presidential election in the early hours of Wednesday morning, making him the 47th president of the United States. Trump largely targeted undocumented immigrants present within the United States over the course of his campaign, promising "to have the largest deportation in the history of our country" if elected.

"While I'm sure there may be litigation ahead, there's a lot of other ways that people are going to act and need to act for the sake of their states and their residents," Healey told MSNBC.

"I think that the key here is that, you know, every tool in the toolbox has got to be used to protect our citizens, to protect our residents and protect our states. And certainly, hold the line on democracy and the rule of law as a basic principle," she continued.

Originally published by Latin Times.


Climate ‘flashpoint’ looms for Trump’s China-centric focus on Pacific: US analysts

Deepening U.S. engagement with the Pacific is now firmly a consensus issue in Washington.

By Harry Pearl for BenarNews
2024.11.07

Then-President Donald Trump sports a flower lei after arriving aboard Air Force One at Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii, Nov. 3, 2017. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)

Growing U.S. security and diplomatic ties with Pacific island nations are unlikely to slow even if American foreign policy undergoes a major shake-up during Donald Trump’s second term, say former White House advisers and analysts.

Following decades of neglect, Washington has in recent years embarked on a Pacific charm offensive to counter the growing influence of China in the region.

While Trump’s unpredictably and climate change skepticism could be potential flashpoints in relations, deepening U.S. engagement with the Pacific is now firmly a consensus issue in Washington.

Trump is likely to maintain focus on the relationship, experts say, but he will have to prove that U.S. attention extends beyond just security-related matters.

“President Trump saw a strategic rationale for increased engagement in the Indo-Pacific and increased engagement in the Pacific islands,” said Alexander Gray, a senior fellow in national security affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council.

“While the reality is that the security lens is going to galvanize our commitment of resources and time on the region, it’s important for us to send a message that we have other interests beyond just security,” added Gray, who was the first-ever director for Oceania & Indo-Pacific security at the National Security Council.

“We have to show an interest in development, economic assistance and economic growth.”

A number of firsts

Trump’s first term between 2017-21 contained a number of firsts for relations between the world’s No. 1 economy and Pacific islands.

Then-President Donald Trump meets with, from left, Marshall Islands President Hilda Heine, Federated States of Micronesia President David Panuelo and Palau President Tommy Remengesau on May 21, 2019. (US Embassy Kolonia/White House via Facebook)

He invited the leaders of Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia and Palau for a historic visit to the White House in May 2019. Later that year Mike Pompeo became the first-ever secretary of state to visit the Federated States of Micronesia.

In 2019, the White House announced more than US$100 million in new assistance to the region under its so-called Pacific Pledge, with additional funding provided the following year. Money was funneled into USAID operations in Pacific islands nations, maritime security, internet coverage, environmental challenges and disaster resilience.

The Biden-Harris administration built upon that relationship, including twice inviting Pacific Islands Forum leaders to meet at the White House in 2022 and 2023.

“The importance of the Pacific is bipartisan in the U.S. system. In fact, re-engagement with the Pacific islands started under the previous Trump administration,” said Kathryn Paik, who served as director for the Pacific and Southeast Asia at the NSC under President Joe Biden.

“This was largely due to increased Chinese interest in the region and the growing understanding within the U.S. system of the strategic importance of these islands.”

In particular, the Biden administration’s commitment to tackling climate change chimed well with Pacific nations, which are vulnerable to rising sea levels and extreme weather events like cyclones that are predicted to become more frequent as the planet warms.

Radically different approach

Trump has taken a radically different approach — pledging to ramp up oil production and threatening to pull out of the Paris climate agreement for a second time.

In June 2017, Trump announced the U.S. would formally withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, the first nation in the world to do so.

That could make climate change a potential “flashpoint” between Pacific nations and another Trump administration, said Benjamin Reilly, a visiting professor at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney.

“The climate change issue is right at the top of the agenda for Pacific island leaders. It creates lots of difficulties when you have an administration that’s seen as downplaying the importance of that,” he told BenarNews.

President Joe Biden (R) meets with presidents of Pacific island nations at the U.S.-Pacific Island Country Summit in Washington, D.C., Sept. 29, 2022. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)

Paik, who is now a senior fellow with the Australia Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the climate factor would complicate the relationship, but it was unlikely to “completely sink” it.

Despite Trump’s open skepticism about dangerous planet warming, U.S. support for resilience efforts across the Pacific might not be affected, some observers said.

“The Pacific certainly didn’t agree with us on our macro approach to climate change,” said Gray, who visited the region a number of times, including for the 2019 Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) in Tuvalu. “But we made tremendous progress in advancing our relationships in the region because we were able to talk about resilience issues that affect people day to day.”

Shared values, mutual respect

Following Trump’s sweeping victory on Tuesday, Pacific island leaders tried to stress their shared interests with the U.S.

“We look forward to reinforcing the longstanding partnership between our nations, grounded in shared values and mutual respect,” said Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape.

Tonga’s Prime Minister Siaosi Sovaleni and Fiji’s Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabukia both said they looked forward to advancing bilateral relations and Pacific interests.

Pacific island nations have sought to benefit from the China-U.S. rivalry by securing more aid and foreign investment. But they have expressed alarm that their region is being turned into a geopolitical battleground.

Reilly said a danger for any new president was treating the Pacific islands as a “geopolitical chess board.”

“That’s a terrible way to actually engage and win hearts and minds and build enduring partnerships,” he said.

Paik said the U.S. now needs to build on the successes of the first phase of American re-engagement.

The U.S. renewed its compact of free association deals with Micronesia, Palau and the Marshall Islands earlier this year, but “some of the implementation is still pending,” she said. The deals give the U.S. military exclusive access to their vast ocean territories in exchange for funding and the right for their citizens to live and work in the U.S.

“Some of the embassies have been opened, but we still only have one or two diplomats on the ground,” said Paik. “We still need to open an embassy in Kiribati and potentially other locations.

“We need to get ambassadors out to the region. We need a permanent ambassador to the PIF.”

No sitting U.S. president has ever visited a Pacific island nation.



Analysis

How Arab and Muslim voters turned their backs on the Democrats

Analysis: The majority of Arab and Muslim Americans split their vote between Trump and third-party candidates, after backing the Democrats for two decades.



Elis Gjevori
07 November, 2024

"No new wars, family values, affordable groceries," read Donald Trump’s campaign fliers in Dearborn, Michigan, home to the largest Arab-American community in the United States.

And the message clearly resonated.

Michigan, a swing state, saw Vice President Kamala Harris and the now president-elect Donald Trump campaign heavily to capture the city’s 200,000 Muslim and Arab American voters.
Related

What does Donald Trump's victory mean for the Middle East?
Analysis
Giorgio Cafiero

In the end, Trump won the state by just over 84,000 votes, a state President Joe Biden had carried by more than 154,000 in 2020, in part due to overwhelming support from Arab American and Muslim voters.

As Harris and Trump scrambled to persuade undecided voters, Trump’s campaign found that some of the up-for-grabs electorate in battleground states were about six times as likely as other voters to be motivated by their views on Israel’s war in Gaza.


Trump’s team acted on the data and blitzed Michigan voters of Arab and Muslim descent with an anti-war message.

“Why would Muslims support Lying Kamala Harris when she embraces Muslim hating and very dumb person, Liz Cheney,” asked Trump, referring to the daughter of Dick Cheney, the former Vice President under President George Bush who took the country into war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Her father brought years of war and death to the Middle East. He killed many Arabs, many, many Arabs and Muslims,” added Trump to rapturous approval.

“The Muslim American and Arab American communities abandoned Kamala Harris in droves. Our goal was to consolidate all our votes within third parties, and we were well on our way to achieving that until the final weeks leading up to the election,” said Hudhayfah Ahmad from the official Abandon Harris Campaign.

The group had focused on holding the Biden-Harris administration accountable for the ongoing genocide in Gaza.


Harris' campaign shifted from ignoring the Arab and Muslim vote to actively alienating it. [Getty]

Polling conducted in late October by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) showed that 42% of Muslim voters favoured third-party candidate Jill Stein while 41% favoured Vice President Kamala Harris.

This was in sharp contrast to 2020 when CAIR polling revealed 71 percent of Muslim voters planned to vote for Biden.

By 2024, this crucial voter bloc had dramatically collapsed, with 98 percent of Muslims polled saying they disapproved of how President Joe Biden had handled the war in Gaza.

The Muslim vote in the US is estimated at over one million voters. They form a substantial voting bloc in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, largely concentrated in urban areas, including Detroit and Atlanta.

Stein, leader of the Green Party, who prioritised ending Israel's war on Gaza and its occupation of the West Bank, secured just over 44,000 votes in Michigan and over 600,000 nationally. Neither result was enough to prevent Harris from losing nationally or in key swing states.


In the final weeks, however, anecdotal evidence from the Abandon Harris Campaign indicated that Arab and Muslim voters may have shifted towards the Trump ticket, moving away from Stein.

Two things happened, said Ahmad, speaking to The New Arab.

“Firstly, Kamala Harris touted the endorsements of the Cheneys and began campaigning with them,” antagonising the Arab and Muslim communities.

“Then the Trump-Vance campaign ramped up their anti-war rhetoric and promised a community in deep pain and grief that they would immediately work to end the war once in office,” added Ahmad, referring to Israel’s ongoing wars on Gaza and Lebanon.

“These two events combined undermined our plans to consolidate the anti-genocide protest vote within third parties,” said Ahmad.

The aim of the campaign was to “abandon a party they had overwhelmingly supported over the last two decades and to consolidate our votes within third parties, paving a new path forward beyond the existing duopoly,” said Ahmad.

“We succeeded in the first objective but fell short in the second.”
Related

How Biden's Middle East policy helped fuel a regional war
Analysis
Giorgio Cafiero
Voting for change

“I’m not going to start wars, I’m going to stop wars.” These words were part of Donald Trump’s victory speech. It’s a promise that Arab and Muslim communities are hoping he will fulfil.

In the lead-up to 5 November, however, there were signs that Harris' campaign shifted from ignoring the Arab and Muslim vote to actively alienating it.

The Harris campaign dispatched former President Bill Clinton to berate Muslims in Michigan for not supporting the Democratic Party. He then faced a backlash from Muslim and Arab Americans after claiming that Israel was "forced" to kill civilians in Gaza and suggesting that the country was in the Holy Land "first" - before Palestinians.


Conversely, by late September, Trump secured the backing of Amer Ghalib, the Yemeni-American Muslim mayor of Hamtramck, a small town in Michigan just outside Detroit, with a population of around 30,000, primarily Muslim.

The photo-op and endorsement also insulated Trump from renewed criticism tied to his first term.

“Many voters did migrate to Trump, especially within the Yemeni American community,” said Dawud Walid, Executive Director of the Michigan chapter of CAIR.

“They saw voting for Trump as a more effective way to send a message to the Democrats than voting third party,” said Walid, speaking to The New Arab.

Yemeni Americans are the second-largest demographic of Arabs in Dearborn, following Lebanese Americans.

“In Dearborn, Michigan, 52 percent of the votes went to Trump, which surprised me. The Yemeni community had an effective grassroots campaign despite the short timeframe,” added Walid.

The Democrats seemed to have “assumed” that Muslims had no choice but to support them, said Walid.

Former President Obama appealed to fear, addressing Muslims as if they had no choice but to support Vice President Harris, said Walid.

Harris' unwillingness to even rhetorically reach out to the communities seemingly pushed at least some to strategically vote for Trump. [Getty]


Harris herself reinforced this narrative during a campaign stop in Detroit, where she responded to a protester by suggesting that refusing to vote for her would mean a desire to see Trump back in office.

“This rhetoric offended the community’s sense of honour. The Democrats’ loss was their own doing, not the fault of the Muslim community,” he added.


In contrast, Trump adjusted his rhetoric from eight years ago, which “was openly hostile towards Muslims, and he did not meet with Muslim leaders,” said Walid, adding that “he has scaled back most, though not all, of the anti-Muslim rhetoric from his previous campaign”.

While the Arab and Muslim communities rejected Harris, the shift “did not translate into significant support for Stein,” the third-party candidate widely believed to be well-positioned to absorb the vote, said Imam Tom Facchine, Research Director of Islam and Society at the Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research.

Harris’ unwillingness to even rhetorically reach out to the communities seemingly pushed at least some to strategically vote for Trump.

“People were worried that Harris might narrowly win, so many who were considering Stein switched to Trump when polls indicated a close race,” said Facchine speaking to The New Arab.

Related
In-depth
Brooke Anderson

While the Arab and Muslim vote wasn’t the singular factor in Harris’ loss, the community wanted to send a message to future Democratic Party leadership that their vote should not be taken for granted.

People, especially in Michigan and Pennsylvania, many with direct ties to the Trump campaign, told Facchine of the stark contrast between the two campaigns' attitudes towards Arab and Muslim communities.

“The Trump campaign seemed engaged and willing to listen, whereas Harris’s campaign didn’t offer meaningful attention,” he said.

“In the end, Trump's actions - such as his visit to the Yemeni cafe, a significant PR move in Michigan - resonated with voters. His rhetoric about peace in the Middle East and avoiding war appealed to those hoping he would fulfil his promises, even if there was no certainty of his intentions.”

Elis Gjevori is a journalist based in Istanbul. He focuses on the Balkans, Turkey, and the Middle East
Follow him on X: @Elis_Gj


'Lebanese Americans voted for Trump because of ceasefire promise made at cafe': parliament speaker

Nabih Berri claims that US President-elect Donald Trump signed a written agreement to end Israel's war in Lebanon - in a restaurant.

The New Arab Staff
07 November, 2024

Nabih Berri claims Trump has pledged to end Israel's war on Lebanon [Getty]


Lebanon's Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri claimed on Wednesday that Lebanese Americans voted for Donald Trump due to a promise made in a café in Michigan by the victorious Republican candidate to ensure a ceasefire in Lebanon.

In an interview with Mustaqbal Web, Berri was asked about the Trump’s alleged popularity among Lebanese Americans.

“He signed a written pledge for a ceasefire in Lebanon immediately upon his victory at Hassan Abbas's restaurant,” Berri claimed.

In an effort to reach out to disaffected Arab American and, in particular, Lebanese American voters in the key swing state of Michigan, Donald Trump visited a popular Lebanese American café/restaurant in Dearborn, owned by Hassan Abbas, also known as Albert Abbas.

Abbas said publicly that he only agreed to host Trump if he agreed to supporting a ceasefire in Lebanon. This is where Berri claims Trump signed a written agreement to end Israel’s war on Lebanon.

Following this visit, the Trump campaign issued a letter to Lebanese Americans, pledging to bring "peace" to the Middle East, with a particular focus on Lebanon, while putting the blame for the ongoing wars in the region on his Democratic opponents, who have held the White House since 2020.

However, nowhere in the letter did Trump even mention Israel, let alone criticise it for its brutal wars on Gaza and Lebanon.

However, Berri agreed with Trump about blaming Biden for the wars, which he said was also part of why Lebanese Americans turned out for Trump in Michigan, saying, "It's because of Joe Biden's policy, as he stood by watching the killing of children in Gaza and Lebanon."

Berri is one of Lebanon's most powerful political figures, holding his role as Speaker of the Lebanese parliament for 22 years. He is the leader of the Shia Amal Movement, which is a close ally of Hezbollah.

Though there are no official statistics on the size of the Lebanese American vote for Trump in Dearborn and Michigan, unofficial results point to a significant wave of support for the Republican candidate.

Unofficial results released by the city of Dearborn show that Trump won 42 percent of the vote in Dearborn, compared with 36 percent for Kamala Harris and 18 percent for the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein, as reported by The New York Times.

Trump comfortably defeated Democratic contender and current Vice President Harris in Tuesday's presidential election, including winning Michigan by just under 90,000 votes.

As of 2023, Dearborn is the largest city with an Arab majority in the US, with 55 percent of its 110,000 population claiming Middle Eastern or North African roots in the latest census.


‘Blood over humanity’: Abandon Harris coalition speaks out on Kamala's election defeat

The Abandon Harris group said Trump’s election win “didn’t have to be inevitable”, following the Biden administration's controversial pro-Israel stance on Gaza

The New Arab Staff
07 November, 2024

Hassan Abdel Salam, co-founder of the "Abandon Harris" campaign, speaks at an event with Workers Strike Back during an event endorsing Green Party candidate Jill Stein at the Bint Jebail Cultural Center in Dearborn, MI on Friday, Oct. 6, 2024 [Getty]


A coalition of Muslim and Arab-American leaders known as Abandon Harris expressed satisfaction on Wednesday over the electoral defeat of US Vice President Kamala Harris, attributing it to the Biden-Harris administration’s pro-Israel policies and inaction on securing a ceasefire to stop Israel's ongoing war on the Gaza Strip.

Posting on X, Abandon Harris said that they had repeatedly sought meetings with Harris’s campaign to discuss a ceasefire, only to be met with “ridicule, evasion, and condescension.”

In a statement, the coalition said: "A Trump presidency didn’t have to be inevitable. The Democrats had every opportunity to win this election with ease."

"But instead, they chose to betray their base, abandon the lives of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, and align themselves with some of the darkest figures in American history- like [former Vice President] Dick Cheney," the group added.

They argued that the Democrats made a deliberate choice, bearing sole responsibility for the outcome and the consequences for the country.

While Abandon Harris voiced serious concern over Trump’s past pro-Israel stance, they called on him to immediately implement an arms embargo on Israel and advocate for a permanent ceasefire in the Middle East.

Trump has historically positioned himself as a pro-Israel leader, infamously declaring in 2019 that he was "history's most pro-Israel US president."

Abandon Harris, which endorsed Green Party candidate Jill Stein in this election, promoted third-party voting as a means of elevating new voices.

Dr. Hassan Abdel Salam, director of the campaign, told independent news site Scheerpost on Tuesday that this election was “just the beginning” and expressed hope that their movement could disrupt the two-party system by presenting a "bulwark of conscience" that could ultimately influence party platforms toward more progressive policies.

"At Abandon Harris, we want policies to end genocide and torture, to bring an agenda of universal health care, an agenda to end racism in our country, an agenda for us to have economic equality," he added.

The coalition’s efforts seemed to resonate with key communities, particularly in Dearborn, Michigan, home to America’s largest Arab-American population.

Preliminary results showed Trump narrowly winning in Dearborn, a significant shift from 2020, when outgoing President Joe Biden won the area decisively.

This shift suggests that voter anger with the Biden-Harris administration's Middle East policies and Trump’s late-campaign pledge to reduce conflict there played a role in reshaping voter preferences in these communities.


Karma for Kamala: Ignoring Gaza has lost Harris the US election

Donald Trump has swept aside Kamala Harris, whose stubborn refusal to engage with Arab Americans over Gaza has come back to haunt her, writes Alex Foley.

Perspectives

Alex Foley
06 Nov, 2024

After treating Arab Americans as expendable and dismissing pro-Palestinian advocates outright, Harris found their votes simply were not there, writes Alex Foley [photo credit: Getty Images]


We did it, Joe.

The race was Kamala Harris’s to lose. Trump ran a terrible campaign; barring a quick shift at a McDonald’s, his heart no longer seemed to be in it. He eschewed traditional media for the bro podcast circuit. Manchild tech billionaire Elon Musk gripped Trump in a bear hug for the last weeks of the campaign, acting as a noxious surrogate.

The former president failed to make any of his juvenile barbs stick to Harris and managed to collapse support among Latino voters in late-stage polling after a comedian referred to Puerto Rico as a "floating island of garbage" at one of his last campaign rallies.

There was no, "Because you’d be in jail," moment. He never managed to build a cohesive narrative. He even failed at turning two assassination attempts into any real boost in the polls.

The real unknown variable was Gaza. After a year of watching the Dems back Israel to the hilt, it was unclear how many Liberal voters would give up the crumbs Harris was offering in solidarity with Palestinians. Students across the country had created encampments despite brutal police crackdowns and physical assaults from pro-Israel counterprotestors. Prominent celebrities, academics, and other public figures were speaking out at considerable personal risk.

Related

Good riddance, genocide Joe. You will be remembered as a monster
Voices
Owen Jones

It did seem for a brief moment that perhaps Harris had managed to capture any opposition.

The advocacy group the Uncommitted National Movement had mounted a pressure campaign during the Democratic primaries, resulting in 37 uncommitted delegates being sent to the DNC. Despite their sit-ins and vocal criticism, they failed to achieve even minor concessions from the Harris campaign, like allowing a Palestinian to speak at the convention.

Then, in early October they released a three-minute video endorsing Harris. The narrator warned of the threat Trump posed to Palestinians in Gaza over footage of the performative aid air drops and photos of the destroyed World Central Kitchen convoy that occurred under the Biden/Harris administration.

The day before the election, Middle East Eye published an article detailing the breakdown of the relationship between the national group leadership and the grassroots movement, centring on the former’s capitulation to the Democratic Party, which resulted in an eventual split. MEE looked through the Uncommitted National Movement’s Federal Election Commission filings to discover they had received over $400,000 from the Democratic-aligned PAC Movement Voter Project.

Movement Voter Project is explicit in its expectations that "partners" will not endorse third-party candidates. Their website states, "We would not support groups to get out the vote for such candidates." Uncommitted received its first payment of $100,000 from the PAC on March 18, the day it was founded.

Kamala Harris rehashes 2016 election, voters did too

As though to add insult to injury, Kamala Harris paired her outright rejection of Arab American voters with courting neocons. Alongside Taylor Swift and Beyonce, the Democrats boasted about endorsements from former Vice President Dick Cheney and seventeen former Reagan staffers.

Cheney’s daughter, Liz, who lost her seat as Wyoming’s sole congressional Representative to a Trump pick in her primary in 2023, did press for Harris. While on The View, co-host Whoopi Goldberg stated Liz Cheney’s "moral core is magnificent," and tapped her to become Harris’s Attorney General. Goldberg then said she would feel "a lot better" if Cheney was in charge of the CIA or the FBI.

Harris was likely amenable. She stated in a CNN interview that she was committed to "inviting diversity of opinion" and felt a Republican on her cabinet would benefit America. That value of diversity clearly did not extend to those who wanted a ceasefire.

Harris failed to demonstrate even a basic capacity to empathise with Palestinians at every turn. She responded to every protest with the same callous, insistent, "I’m speaking." The implication was clear: everyone on the Left was expected to bend the knee.

Many did. The justifications I have heard among the pro-Palestinian voters who eventually cast a ballot for Harris were varied. Some admitted naked self-interest, while others pointed to Trump’s track record on Israel and his capacity to somehow be worse for Palestinians. Less convincingly, many say they felt Harris would be easier to push towards a ceasefire once elected.


Still now, top Democrats are likely mobilising to make criticism of Israel increasingly difficult. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has committed to passing the Antisemitism Awareness Act in the lame-duck period, attaching it to a must-pass bill.

The legislation would make it a statutory requirement for the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights to consider the IHRA definition of antisemitism when investigating discrimination complaints.

The IHRA definition is incredibly broad, and includes "denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour." Good luck with any future encampments.
Related

Dear Arab Americans, voting Trump won't teach Harris 'a lesson'
Voices
Wa'el Alzayat

In the final week before the election, while Republicans donned garbage bags and worked themselves into a frenzy over an euthanised squirrel and male concubines, the Kamala campaign sent Bill Clinton to condescend to Arab Americans in the crucial swing state of Michigan.

Israel, he said, were "forced" to kill civilians by Hamas, who he claimed failed to understand, "[Israelis] were there first, before their faith existed."

The former president needed only a few minutes to dispel the years of myth-making around the Oslo Accords. America has never been a neutral arbiter.

After treating Arab Americans as expendable and dismissing pro-Palestinian advocates outright, Harris found their votes simply were not there. It has been an act of hubris that potentially outstrips even the arrogance of the Hillary 2016 campaign.

In the end, Harris campaign co-chair Cedric Richmond addressed the crowd at Howard University stating the Vice President would not appear until the following day. She was no longer speaking.

Alex Foley is an educator and painter living in Brighton, UK. They have a research background in molecular biology of health and disease. They currently work on preserving fragile digital materials related to mass death atrocities in the MENA region.

Follow them on X: @foleywoley
The Irish people face a historic choice at election, says Mary Lou McDonald


Sinn Fein leader Mary Lou McDonald and Janice Boylan (Cillian Sherlock/PA)


By Cillian Sherlock and David Young, PAToday at 13:30

The Irish people face a “historic choice” in the General Election between more of the same or the “live option” of a Sinn Fein-led government, Mary Lou McDonald has said.


The Sinn Fein president said the 70-plus candidates being fielded by her party proved it was “serious about winning” and removing both Fine Gael and Fianna Fail from power.

Ms McDonald was speaking to reporters as she launched her own electoral campaign in the Dublin Central constituency.

Taoiseach Simon Harris will formally seek the dissolution of the Dail on Friday when he meets President Michael D Higgins at his residence at Aras an Uachtarain in Dublin.

That will kick off a three-week campaign ahead of polling day on November 29.

There is a huge need for change, and by that we mean a new governmentMary Lou McDonald, Sinn Fein president

“There is a huge appetite for change,” said Ms McDonald.

“There is a huge need for change, and by that we mean a new government.

“And when election day comes, all of the political debate will really crystallise into a very straightforward choice, which is either more of the same, in either a Fine Gael or a Fianna Fail led government or, for the first time, a government led by Sinn Fein.

“So we are saying to people very directly, you will have a choice.

“Actually, it will be a historic choice.

“In election after election, it has always boiled down really to either Fine Gael or Fianna Fail, Tweedledum or Tweedledee.

“On this occasion, there now is a live option for a different government, a new government.”


She added: “We will be running 70 candidates or more, and so we are in this to win it.

“When we say that we want a change of government, we mean that, and we know that there is substantial sentiment out there amongst the public that recognises that now is the time.”

Ms McDonald continued: “We are serious about change in government. We are serious about winning. Of course, we have to run sufficient candidates for that to be a reality, and we have, and we will.”

Sinn Fein goes into the election on the back of a difficult number of weeks for the party.

It has faced intense criticism of its handling of several controversies focused on how it dealt with a range of allegations and complaints against party members.


In the last 12 months the party has also seen its poll ratings dip quite significantly, dropping from front runner to leave it trailing behind both Fine Gael and Fianna Fail in a series of recent polls.

However, Ms McDonald struck an upbeat tone as she spoke to the media at a city centre hotel on Thursday.

She also said that chronic housing shortages in Ireland would be the defining issue of the campaign.

“Victory, success, means a change of government,” she said.

“That’s how it will be measured for us. We’ve talked a long time about the need for a change of direction.


“We’ve spoken particularly about the area of housing, this will be the biggest issue in this campaign.

“In our opinion, if society and if government continues to fail in this area, there are economic and social consequences that are profound and far reaching.

“I don’t believe that housing will be sorted out by a government led by either Fianna Fail or Fine Gael.

“So we want to invite people to vote for change and a change in government.

“Sinn Fein is the only option, the only alternative vehicle beyond a Fianna Fail or Fine Gael-led government, and that’s what success would look like to us.”


She added: “My preference is for a government beyond and without either Fianna Fail or Fine Gael.

“We will run enough candidates so that Sinn Fein can lead the next government.

“The rest is over to the people.

“This will all be a question of the campaign.

“The next three weeks will be absolutely decisive in that regard.”
CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M

Peru arrests the country's soccer boss as part of a criminal investigation into fraud

Peruvian police have arrested the head of the country’s soccer federation as part of an investigation into fraud, extortion, money laundering and other crimes

ByFRANKLIN BRICEÑO 
Associated Press
November 7, 2024, 7


LIMA, Peru -- Peruvian police arrested the head of the country's soccer federation Thursday as part of an investigation into allegations that he abused his position to extort local clubs into ceding their television rights.

Agustín Lozano is the second Peruvian soccer boss to be detained since 2018 when his predecessor was investigated for his alleged role in two murders for which he was later absolved.

Lozano was escorted handcuffed into a police vehicle outside his home in the capital, Lima, as several journalists stood by. He promised to clear up any misunderstanding and asked that the public reserve judgements.

Six other people connected to the suspected conspiracy were also arrested.

Prosecutors, in a 140-page court filing seeking Lozano's arrest, said the soccer boss and others tried to wrest lucrative broadcast rights from Peru's first division soccer teams. Clubs that didn't cede control were threatened with being relegated from the top tier of Peru's soccer clubs, according to the document obtained by The Associated Press.

Lozano is also suspected of illegally spending $1.8 million in federation funds to transport 142 people not associated with the soccer organization to Doha in 2022 for a playoff match between Peru and Australia to see which side qualified for the World Cup in Qatar that year, according to the court filing.

A prosecutor overseeing the case told local radio that Lozano had been under investigation for over a year. Although he has not been criminally charged, authorities ordered his arrest because they deemed he is a flight risk and could obstruct their investigation.

Lozano has had run-ins with the law before. In 2023, prosecutors sought his arrest as part of an embezzlement investigation from his days as mayor of the northern city of Chongoyape.

Under Lozano's leadership, Peru's national soccer team is in second to last place among South American men's teams seeking to qualify for the 2026 FIFA World Cup.


Russian Community Organization and Its Allies Behind Vladimir Oblast Ban on Hijabs

Paul Goble

 


Thursdaey, Novmber 7, 2024

   In another sign of the growing power of right-wing Russian nationalist groups like “the Russian Community,” “Northern Man,” and “Rokot-Center” in the wake of the Crocus City Hall terrorist action, officials in Vladimir Oblast have acceded to demands from these groups and banned the hijab.


    They have done so, local journalists say, even though Muslims number only 50,000 out of a total population of 1.3 million and even though there have been no significant clashes involving them and the ethnic Russian majority 

me/dovod3/15577 and kavkazr.com/a/hayp-na-hidzhabe-kak-chechnya-i-dagestan-uchat-islamu-tsentraljnuyu-rossiyu/33186434.html

    That the regional authorities felt they had to defer to the Russian nationalist groups shows how powerful they have become and how likely it is that many officials in the federal subjects view they as enjoying the favor of the Kremlin. And that in turn means that regional governments may take the same view and the same step despite the absence of problems.

    On the growing power of the Russian Community and other groups like it, see 

windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2024/10/extremist-russian-community-now-active.html,

 windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2024/10/another-black-hundreds-group-revived-in.html,

 windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2024/10/closed-diasporas-are-seizing-power.html and jamestown.org/program/russian-community-extremists-becoming-the-black-hundreds-of-today/.










LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for hijab babushka

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for HIJAB

SMASH PATRIARCHY

Iraq Parliament to vote on controversial amendment lowering marriage age to 9

By Lilia Sebouai
Daily Telegraph UK·
7 Nov, 2024


Women’s rights activists accuse the government of attempting to ‘legalise child rape’. Photo / AFP

Iraq is poised to slash the legal age of consent from 18 to 9, allowing men to marry young children.

The proposed legal change also deprives women of rights to divorce, child custody and inheritance.

Iraq’s Parliament, which is dominated by a coalition of conservative Shia Muslim parties, is preparing to vote through an amendment that would overturn the country’s “personal status law”.

The legislation, also known as Law 188, was heralded as one of the most progressive in the Middle East when it was introduced in 1959 and provides an overarching set of rules governing the affairs of Iraqi families, regardless of their religious sect.

As well as bringing down the legal marriage age, the amendment would also remove women’s rights to divorce, child custody and inheritance.



The governing coalition says the move aligns with a strict interpretation of Islamic law and is intended to protect young girls from “immoral relationships”.

The second reading of the amendment to Law 188 was passed on September 16.

It isn’t the first time Shia parties in Iraq have tried to amend the personal status law – attempts to change it failed in 2014 and 2017, largely because of a backlash from Iraqi women.



But the coalition now has a large parliamentary majority and is on the brink of pushing the amendment over the line, said Dr Renad Mansour, a senior research fellow at Chatham House.

“It’s the closest it’s ever been,” he told the Telegraph.

“It has more momentum than it’s ever had, primarily because of the Shia parties.

“It’s not all Shia parties, it’s just the specific ones that are empowered and are really pushing it.”

Renad added that the proposed amendment was part of a wider political move by Shia Islamist groups to “consolidate their power” and regain legitimacy.

“Stressing the religious side is a way for them to try and regain some of the ideological legitimacy that has been waning over the last few years,” he told the Telegraph.

It is not yet clear exactly when the amendment will go before Parliament for a vote, but it could come at any moment, he said.
An attack on women, girls ... and Iraq’s social fabric

Experts and activists say the amendment would effectively erase the most important rights of women in the country.

“The amendment would not just undermine these rights,” said Sarah Sanbar, Iraq researcher at Human Rights Watch. “It would erase them.”

Athraa Al-Hassan, international human rights legal adviser and director of Model Iraqi Woman, told the Telegraph she is “afraid” Iraq’s system of governance will be replaced with a new system known as the Guardianship of the Jurist – a Shia system that puts religious rule above the state.


The system is the same one that underpins the regimes in Afghanistan and Iran, where a Guardian Jurist serves as supreme leader of the country.

Iraq already has high rates of child marriage. According to the United Nations Children’s Fund (Unicef), some 28% of women in Iraq are married by 18.

This is because of a loophole in the personal status law which allows religious leaders, instead of the courts, to officiate thousands of marriages each year – including those involving girls as young as 15, with permission from the father.

These unregistered marriages are widespread in economically poor, ultra-conservative Shia communities in Iraq.

But because the nuptials are not recognised by law, the girls and any children they have are denied a plethora of rights.

For example, hospitals can refuse women admitted for childbirth without a marriage certificate.


The amendment would legitimise these religious marriages, putting young girls at increased risk of sexual and physical violence, as well as being denied access to education and employment, according to Human Rights Watch.

The proposed amendment is the latest move by the governing coalition to curb the rights of women.

In April it also made same-sex relationships punishable with up to 15 years in prison, after failing to impose the death penalty. And last year, it ruled that media outlets replace the term “homosexuality” with “sexual deviance” on all platforms. The term “gender” was also banned.

The Iraqi Parliament will formally debate the latest amendments before putting them to a vote.

The action has ignited an outcry on social media, with women’s rights activists accusing the Government of attempting to “legalise child rape”.

In August, protests erupted in Baghdad and other cities across the country. The demonstrations were organised by Coalition 188, an Iraqi group of female activists opposed to amending the personal status law.


“What they aspire to in Parliament is not in the interest of society, but their personal interest,” said Ms Al-Hassan, one of the leading voices in the country’s feminist movement.

There are fears that the amendment will deepen Iraq’s already sectarian divides.

“We are defending the rights of women and girls [and] protecting Iraqi society from disintegration and the establishment of sectarianism among the social fabric,” said Al-Hassan.

Sectarian conflict has long been rife in Iraq, with the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003 ultimately increasing Iranian Shia influence.
Mansour said amending Law 188 would further entrench divisions.

“It would bring everything back to the sect,” said Mansour. “But many Iraqis don’t want to be defined politically by their sect. They want to be defined by their government and their state.”


The proposed amendments would give Muslim citizens the option of selecting either the current, largely secular personal status law, or religious law – depending on their sect – as the basis for governing their personal affairs.

But, ultimately, this decision lies solely with the men.

“It’s explicitly written in the draft that when there’s a dispute between the couple, the sect of the husband takes priority,” said Sanbar. “This is going to remove a lot of protections for women … it will undermine the principle of equality before the law.”

She was also concerned the amendment would give Iraqi women belonging to certain sects greater privileges and economic independence, while others remain trapped in poverty or abusive marriages.

“[These women] will have to stay in harmful situations because they fear losing custody of their children,” Sanbar said.

Al-Hassan denounced the amendment as “very dangerous”, adding that its interference in the affairs of the Iraqi judiciary was a “violation of the constitution”.


“Iraq is a civilised civil state that cannot be otherwise. The first female minister in the Arab countries was Iraqi and the first female judge was Iraqi,” said Al-Hassan. “We aspire to progress, not regress.”
Irish parliament passes motion declaring Israel is perpetrating genocide in Gaza

Dublin plans to intervene in South Africa's genocide case against Israel at ICJ by end of year, says deputy prime minister

Esra Tekin |07.11.2024    TRT/AA

ISTANBUL

Irish lawmakers on Thursday approved a non-binding motion that “genocide is being perpetrated before our eyes by Israel in Gaza,” according to media reports.

The country's deputy prime minister, or tanaiste, also announced that Dublin plans to intervene by the end of the year in South Africa's genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), reported London-based news agency PA.

Micheal Martin also emphasized the country's commitment to a strict interpretation of the Genocide Convention, as well as the "detailed and rigorous legal analysis" that the government conducted in its decision to intervene in the case.

Ireland has repeatedly stated that it would submit a declaration of intervention to the ICJ once South Africa filed its memorial in the case, which it did last Monday.

“Ireland is a strong supporter of the work of the court and is deeply committed to international law and accountability,” Martin said.

The motion urged the government to impose trade, travel and diplomatic sanctions on Israel, with the parliamentary debate framed around its failure to pass an earlier bill that would have imposed trade curbs on Israeli settlements in Palestine, during the current legislature's term.

Following an advisory opinion from the UN's top court in July that Israel's presence in the Palestinian territories violates international law and must end, the Irish government has sought legal advice regarding the bill.

Martin stated that the ICJ’s opinion has altered the legal context for the bill but said that the EU had exclusive authority to adopt legal measures on trade matters related to its member states, which include Ireland.

“The government’s analysis is that substantive amendment will be required to most, if not all, of the bill’s provisions to try to bring it into line with EU law and our own constitution while prohibiting imports from the occupied territories,” he added.

The motion also urged the government to immediately suspend all military trade with Israel, halt dual-use licenses to Israel, and prohibit the use of Irish airspace and airports for weapons transfers to Israel.

Martin stated that there were no military exports from Ireland to Israel, emphasizing that the Irish government regulates the export of dual-use items in accordance with international guidelines.
Gallant Admits Israeli Prisoners’ Release Won’t be Achieved by Force

November 7, 2024
in News, Gaza


DayofPal– Newly fired Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant disclosed Thursday that Israel will pay a heavy price if it remains in Gaza and it’s not good for it to do this, admitting that “there is no body or group in Israel discussing the release of Israeli prisoners as the only decision-maker is Benjamin Netanyahu.”

Making his remarks before the families of Israeli prisoners held in Gaza, Gallant added, “I don’t know if it is possible to influence him [Netanyahu] into a ceasefire. I tried and failed. I was isolated in the cabinet, and both the head of the Shin Bet, the Chief of Staff, and the head of the Mossad agreed with me on the necessity of reaching a deal.”

“As for Netanyahu’s considerations, they are neither security nor political,” he confirmed, revealing that the Chief of Staff also agrees with this point despite that Netanyahu claimed ‘It’s a political issue.’

Gallant also clarified that “At the beginning of July, Hamas agreed to a prisoner swap deal, and the conditions have been favorable since then. But until now, we’ve been in disagreement about whether it is ripe or not. I believed, and still believe, that we should be prepared to make a prisoner exchange deal and withdraw from the Philadelphia Corridor.”

Gallant said that “only at the end of July did Israel respond to Hamas’s proposal with a counterproposal that we knew would not be accepted. I said at that time: if you want to pass a proposal that you know won’t be accepted, you should have passed it on July 4. Why wait three weeks?”

Gallant further explained to the families of the Israeli prisoners that “there are issues that cannot be achieved through power, and the prisoner swap deal must be reached.”

The statements of Gallant was made after Israeli PM Netanyahu had fired him following months of clashes over domestic politics and Israel’s war efforts.

In a televised statement, Gallant said his dismissal was the result of a dispute over three things: the issue of ultra-Orthodox military service, the abandonment of hostages in Gaza, and the need for an official inquiry into Hamas’ October 7 operation.

In a recorded statement Tuesday evening, Netanyahu said that “trust between me and the minister of defense has cracked,” replacing Gallant with Israel Katz, former foreign minister.

Shortlink for this post: https://daysofpalestine.ps/?p=58654
France mulling new sanctions on Israeli settlers, minister says in West Bank

France is considering new sanctions against those supporting Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank.


The New Arab Staff
07 November, 2024

Barrot renewed France's commitment to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict [Getty]


France is mulling new sanctions on those enabling the expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, regarded as illegal under international law, Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said on a visit to the Palestinian territory on Thursday.

"France has been a driving force to establish the first sanction regime at the European level targeting individuals or entities, either actors or accomplices of settlement activities", Barrot said after talks with Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas in Ramallah.

"This regime has been activated two times already and we're working on a third batch of sanctions targeting these activities that again are illegal with respect to international law."

Barrot renewed France's commitment to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and warned settlement activities "threaten the political perspective that can ensure durable peace for Israel and Palestine".

Before meeting Abbas, Barrot visited the adjacent town of Al-Bireh, where Israeli settlers set fire to 20 cars on Monday, damaging a nearby building.

After speaking with residents and local officials at the scene, Barrot noted that the attack took place in a part of the West Bank where the Palestinians were supposed to enjoy both civil and security control under the Oslo Accords of the 1990s.

"These attacks from extremist and violent settlers are not only completely inexcusable, not only contrary to international law, but they weaken the perspective of a two-state solution," Barrot said.
Related

Diplomatic incident in French-owned Jerusalem church compound

Ramallah and Al-Bireh governor Laila Ghannam expressed outrage that settler attacks were "taking place in full view and hearing of the entire silent international community".

"Perhaps today, with the visit of the French foreign minister, there will be a spotlight here," she told AFP.

Speaking in Jerusalem earlier Thursday, Barrot said he saw prospects for ending Israel's wars in Gaza and Lebanon after Donald Trump's re-election, citing the Republican's "wish to see the end of the Middle East's endless wars" as well as recent "tactical successes" for Israel.