The ‘Budapest playbook’: A blueprint we can’t afford to follow

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead 

16 November, 2024 
Right-Wing Watch

Orbán’s authoritarian playbook, which Trump and his fellow MAGA Republicans seem to idolise, shows just how vulnerable democratic institutions are in the face of rising populism, and how quickly democratic models can be eroded. The need for a robust defence of democratic values has never been more critical.

As Donald Trump prepares to return to the White House, far-right populist leaders across Europe are celebrating, using his victory as a rallying cry for their own nationalist agendas.

Among them is Viktor Orbán, Hungary’s authoritarian prime minister, who sees Trump’s success as a transformative moment for global nationalism. “History has accelerated… The world is going to change,” he said.

And Trump makes no secret about his admiration for Orbán, having referred to him as a “strongman” and a “real boss.”

This raises an urgent question: Could Orbán’s Hungary serve as a blueprint for Trump to follow, and even more concerning, could such a model be applied in the UK, where Nigel Farage’s anti-immigration party has also achieved electoral success?

Reform MP and the party’s former leader Richard Tice said that the US election had been a “comprehensive rejection of the status quo” and voters “have had enough of classic, smooth wafflers who talk a good game but fail to deliver.”

The MAGA movement

Those who are celebrating Trump’s return in Europe share ideological affinities with Trump’s MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that stronger borders, lower taxes, better international agreements, Conservative judges, more freedom, and anti-migration policies are what define the MAGA movement for Trump supporters.

And these MAGA Republicans have been described as being ‘obsessed’ with Viktor Orbán. JD Vance, Trump’s 2024 running mate, said that the US “could learn a lot” from Hungary, while Trump himself said, “There’s nobody that’s better, smarter, or a better leader than Viktor Orbán. He’s fantastic.”

The winning side of history?

Orbán, once politically isolated in Europe, has positioned himself as the leading figure in the far-right movement, promoting a vision of a Europe that resists multiculturalism and globalism. He has long asserted that he and his growing coalition of nationalist allies are destined to emerge on the winning side of history.

And it’s not difficult to understand the far-right’s adulation of Orbán. While electoral success is one thing, maintaining power is another, and Orbán has been prime minister of Hungary, with a constitutional majority, for 14 consecutive years. As such, he has had remarkable influence on reshaping the country to his own vision.

Similar to Trump and Nigel Farage, some of Orbán’s appeal is owed to his ability to address people with convincing messages centred on national pride, defending borders, prosperity and more, in a simple way.

However, Orbán’s ‘success’ is, more broadly, rooted in his ability to avoid unpopular measures by constructing a political, media and economic infrastructure on personal connections.

Under his leadership, Orbán and his party have effectively seized control of Hungary’s democratic institutions. Today, every major institution is headed by individuals that have been hand-picked by Orbán.

Hungary has also seen the orchestration of a nationwide right-wing media network that promotes government narratives and suppresses dissent, creating a political climate reminiscent of propaganda regimes.

The Voice of America reported in 2022 that Orbán’s allies “have created a pervasive conservative media ecosystem that dominates the airwaves and generally echoes the positions of the Orbán government.”

Additionally, Orbán’s government has manipulated electoral processes to maintain its grip on power. This has included gerrymandering electoral districts and staffing critical institutions with loyalists.

The same can be said about Hungary’s judiciary system. In 2018, a law was passed to set up courts overseen directly by the justice minister. Critics warned that the move would allow interference in judicial matters and further undermine the rule of law.

“[The law] is a serious threat to the rule of law in Hungary and runs counter to values Hungary signed up to when it joined the European Union,” said the rights group Helsinki Committee.

The same year, the European Parliament voted to impose sanctions on Hungary for flouting EU rules on civil rights, democracy and corruption. Hungary rejected the accusations. So far, the EU, which Hungary has been a member of for almost 20 years, has suspended around 20 billion euros in funding for Hungary due to concerns over democratic backsliding and rule-of-law violation.

Exploiting state-of-emergency laws

Just last week, Orbán secured parliamentary approval to extend his authority to govern by decree for another six months, extended until May 2025. Being able to legislate by decree can occur in democracies during periods of crises, and Orbán cited the ongoing state of emergency related to the war in Ukraine as such a crisis. In 2016, he declared emergency powers because of the migration crisis and did the same in 2020 during the Covid pandemic.

His continuing reliance on state-of-emergency laws has raised concern. Human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, have warned that state-of-emergency laws are being exploited to weaken checks and power balances, diminishing the role of other governing bodies with little connection to the emergency at hand.

A ‘heroic protector’?

To sustain his populist appeal, Orbán presents himself as a “heroic protector” of Hungary against external threats, particularly from the European Union.

He regularly uses ‘national consultation’ surveys to give the illusion of democratic inclusion, but which are really manipulative surveys designed to solicit public support for anti-EU sentiments. Critics argue these consultations serve as propaganda tools rather than genuine democratic engagement.

Hungary under Orbán has been described as a “hybrid regime of electoral autocracy,” where elections are held without adhering to fundamental democratic principles. A 2022 report by Members of the European Parliament concluded that Hungary is no longer a fully functioning democracy, attributing this decline directly to Orbán’s policies.

“There is increasing consensus among experts that Hungary is no longer a democracy,” the lawmakers said, citing a series of international indexes that have in recent years downgraded Hungary’s status.

In their resolution, MEPs blamed Viktor Orbán, and condemned his government’s “deliberate and systematic efforts” to undermine the EU’s core values.

“Everything has fallen apart in Hungary. The state essentially does not function, there’s only propaganda and lies,” said Peter Magyar, the leader of the Respect and Freedom, or TISZA, party, which has campaigned on promises to root out deep-seated corruption in the government. Magyar has been outspoken about what he sees as the damage Orbán’s “propaganda factory” has done to Hungary’s democracy.

“It might be very difficult to imagine from America or Western Europe what the propaganda and the state machinery is like here,” Magyar said in an interview before the European elections with the Associated Press.

Hardline position on immigration and LGBTQ+ rights

Orbán’s government has also faced criticism for its hardline position on immigration and LGBTQ+ rights. His administration has enacted controversial laws, including the ‘Stop Soros’ legislation, which criminalises assistance to asylum seekers and positions migrants as a threat to national identity, fuelling anti-immigrant sentiment within Hungary and beyond.

In 2018, Orbán called refugees “Muslim invaders” as he defended his country’s refusal to take part in the EU’s resettlement programme. He added that a large influx of Muslims “inevitably leads to parallel societies”. He claimed Christian and Muslim communities “will never unite”.

“Multiculturalism is only an illusion,” he said.In 2021, in a long-running row over Hungary’s migrant rules, the EU’s top court ruled that the nation’s law criminalising activists and lawyers who help asylum seekers was in breach of European law. Orbán said Hungary had no plans to change the controversial laws.

A UN report into the state of democracy in Eastern Europe found that democracy in Hungary under Orbán has deteriorated more than any other country in the region except Russia. The report noted that in 2022, Hungary was 43 percent democratic compared to 45 percent a year earlier, the report noted.

The report particularly denounces the conduct of the last parliamentary elections, which were marred by “irregularities, abuse of administrative resources and media distortions,” as well as “the Orbán regime’s growing intolerance for dissenting voices.”

The threat of a broader resurgence of authoritarianism

As Europe’s far-right parties gain momentum, with Orbán’s Hungary serving as a model, the threat of a broader resurgence of authoritarianism is increasingly concerning, especially with Trump’s imminent return to the White House. While, as Magyar remarked, Americans and Westerners may struggle to comprehend the extent of propaganda and state machinery in Hungary, they may soon face similar challenges at home.

Like Orbán, Trump has long targeted the mainstream media. He has routinely labelled the press as ‘dishonest’ and ‘scum’ and has singled out individual news organisations and journalists. As well as a distrust in the media, both leaders share the same populist, nationalist, anti-immigration, centralisation of power, and cultural conservatism values

.

But what about in Britain, where, with Labour landsliding in July, the political landscape has diverged from the growing far-right momentum seen across Europe and now, in the US?

We might now have a centre-left government but admiration for Viktor Orbán is not absent in Britain. In 2023, three veteran Conservative MPs – Sir Edward Leigh, Ian Liddell-Grainger, and Sir Christopher Chope – were criticised for their close association with Orbán during a conference in Budapest, where they mingled with leaders from other far-right parties such as Belgium’s Vlaams Belang and Spain’s Vox. Leigh even tweeted a photo of the trio with Orbán, bragging they had been “learning about his country’s effective ways of combating illegal migration.”

In 2022, Nigel Farage, whose Reform UK party helped topple the Conservatives in July and who is of course a close friend of Trump, was among a number of right-wing speakers at America’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). The event, which took place in Hungary, also featured Viktor Orbán. Just days before it, Orban had made reference to the ‘great replacement’ conspiracy theory which claims that there is a liberal elite plot to replace the white populations of Europe and the US through immigration and demographic growth with non-white people.

The event marked the first time that CPAC was held in Europe, as was seen as part of wider efforts to cement bonds between far-right movements both in Europe and America.

Having exited the EU, and with Donald Trump’s impending return to the White House, Keir Starmer finds himself somewhat politically isolated on the global stage. Instead of the centre-left/social democratic alliance he may have dreamt of, Starmer faces a US administration that is not only ideologically distant but also openly hostile to Labour, which Trump’s campaign labelled as “far left.”

Meanwhile, Orbán’s authoritarian playbook, which Trump and his fellow MAGA Republicans seem to idolise, shows just how vulnerable democratic institutions are in the face of rising populism, and how quickly democratic models can be eroded. The need for a robust defence of democratic values has never been more critical.

“The great hope is that the ‘Budapest Playbook’ never becomes an international bestseller and eventually fades into irrelevance, even in Hungary,” wrote Tibor Dessewffy, a council member of the European Council on Foreign Relations.

Right-wing media watch – Daily Mail accused of ‘rank hypocrisy’ after running to ECHR

If there’s one newspaper that has called the loudest for Britain to leave the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), it’s the Daily Mail.

‘Rishi Sunak leaves the door open to Britain quitting ECHR – as he ‘would choose UK’s security over being a member every single time,’ was a headline in January.

In February, Daniel Hannon, a columnist for the paper and staunch Brexiteer having co-founded Vote Leave, wrote: ‘If Euro judges block Rishi Sunak’s new plan to stop small boats, quitting the ECHR is the only way to protect our borders.’

And last month, the Mail shouted about Boris Johnson’s calls for the UK to have a referendum on its ECHR membership. Johnson is, of course, also a columnist for the Mail and vocal campaigner for quitting the Strasburg court.

This week, news emerged that the publisher of the Daily Mail has won a court battle in the ECHR, leading to cries of ‘rank hypocrisy.’

The publisher took the UK government to the court in Strasbourg about its own human rights, which it claims were breached by being forced to pay “success fees” to lawyers representing people it had paid damages to.

Associated Newspapers won the ruling opposing “excessive” costs incurred by claimants in privacy and defamation cases. The publisher argued that its right to freedom of expression, under Article 10 of the European Convention, had been breached.

It won on conditional fee arrangements (CFAs) and the UK was ordered to pay it €15,000 in costs and expenses. A further decision will be made on any pecuniary damages. But Associated Newspapers was not successful on the part of its case relating to After the Event (ATE) insurance premiums for two recent cases for which it had to pay the extra costs.

News of the hearing sparked disbelief, ridicule and calls of ‘hypocrisy.’

“Daily Mail wins ECHR case against ‘success fees’ paid to lawyers, well well. Daily Mail having slagged off ECHR (Court) endlessly for clickbait…goes “bleating” to the court Funny how their “human rights” matter to the Mail when money is involved!” Carol Vorderman posted on X.

“Beat this for rank hypocrisy. The Daily Mail has been calling for the UK to leave the ECHR for years, yet when they think their human rights have been breached what do they do?…” wrote Leeds for Europe in a Facebook post.

Another reader simply asked:

“Just how hypocritical can you get?”

Smear of the Week – Right-wing press continue its absurd campaign to paint Starmer as an antisemite

It seems we’re witnessing something of a (watered-down) replay of 2019, when the right-wing media used every vitriolic headline in the book to present Jeremy Corbyn as an antisemite.

Fast forward five years, and the same media outlets are now targeting Keir Starmer with similar accusations. Having regularly expressed solidarity with Israel and whose formula of moderation and caution about the Gaza conflict and lack of speed in pressing for a ceasefire, has upset many on Labour’s left, you would think that Starmer would be absolved from such accusations.

But that’s not been the case.

In an article headlined: “Starmer accused of allowing anti-Semitism in Britain to ‘deteriorate,’ the Telegraph describes a “string of “performative” policies which “only serve to satisfy an extreme cadre” of ultra-left-wing groups.”

Jewish Labour members, according to the article, assert that Starmer’s actions have emboldened “increasingly aggressive” pro-Palestinian protests and have “added to a climate of intolerance and hate” faced by British Jews.”

The Telegraph cites Labour Against Antisemitism (LAAS), a grassroots group of predominantly Jewish party members, who criticise government actions such as the embargo on arms sales to Israel and the resumption of funding to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine (UNRWA) after claims of its members’ involvement in the October 7 attacks.

The irony of the article did not go unnoticed.

Posting the article on X, children’s author Michael Rosen wrote: “Poor old Starmer. He purges the Labour Party of antisemites, he says he a Zionist, he says Israel has the right to defend itself, he says he ‘does Friday nights’ with his Jewish wife, and yet… he’s still dodgy.”

The latest feeble attempt to associate Starmer with antisemitism, follows absurd claims in September when the PM made a slip during his conference speech, inadvertently calling for a “return of the sausages” when addressing the subject of Gaza.

The gaffe was seized upon by Allison Pearson – described by comedian Stewart Lee as Britain’s worse columnist – who suggested that it proved that Starmer doesn’t care about Israel.

“If the Labour leader can’t make a minor slip in a speech without being accused of being anti-Israel, no wonder he’s retreated to Arsenal’s corporate box,” Lee mocked.

Ultimately, smear articles like these only serve only to blur the lines between credible, fact-based journalism and right-wing ‘news’ opinion and misinformation. They degrade political discourse and distract from meaningful debate, revealing more about the smearers than their targets.

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch


Related posts:

Viktor Orbán is taken apart in European Parliament and told he’s the ‘useful idiot of Russia and China’

Suella Braverman to speak alongside far-right Viktor Orban at Conservative event

Labour can’t afford complacency about the ethnic minority vote

‘Brexpress’ accused of stooping to ‘new low’ for column moaning about resignation of far-right Hungarian Brexit sympathisers

Blinken Atrocious in a Dangerous World

by Binoy Kampmark / November 15th, 2024

It is hard to credit one of the least impressive Secretary of States the United States has ever produced with any merit other than being a plasterwork that, from time to time, moved with caution on the world stage for fear of cracking.  On the stage, Antony Blinken’s brittle performances have been nothing short of unimpressive, notably in pursuing such projects comically titled “Peace in the Middle East.”  Each time he has ventured to various regions of the world, the combatants seem keener than ever to continue taking up arms or indulging in slaughter.

A sense of Blinken’s detachment from the world can be gathered from his Foreign Affairs piece published on October 1, intended as something of a report on the diplomatic achievements of the Biden administration.  It starts off with the sermonising treacle that is all a bit much – the naughty states on the world stage, albeit small in number (Russia, Iran, North Korea and China), “determined to alter the foundational principles of the international system.”

The Biden administration had, in response, “pursued a strategy of renewal, pairing historic investments in competitiveness at home with an intensive diplomatic campaign to revitalize partnerships abroad.”  This served to counter those challengers wishing to “undermine the free, open, secure, and prosperous world that the United States and most countries seek.”  Then comes the remark that should prompt readers to pinch themselves. “The Biden administration’s strategy has put the United States in a much stronger geopolitical position today than it was four years ago.”

An odd assessment for various reasons.  There is the continued war in Ukraine and Washington’s refusal to encourage any meaningful talks between Kiev and Moscow, preferring, instead, the continued supply of weapons to an attritive conflict of slaughter and such acts of industrial terrorism as the attack on the Nord Stream pipeline.

There has been the relentless watering down of the “One China” understanding over the status of Taiwan, along with continued provocations against Beijing through the offensive pact of AUKUS with Australia and the UK.  That particularly odious pact has served to turn Australia into a US military garrison without the consent of its citizens, an outcome sold to the dunces in Canberra as utterly necessary to arrest the rise of China.  Along the way, an arms buildup in the Indo- and Asia-Pacific has been encouraged.

With such a view of the world, it’s little wonder how blind Blinken, and other members of the Biden administration, have been to Israel’s own rogue efforts at breaking and altering the international system, committing, along the way, a goodly number of atrocities that have seen it taken to the International Court of Justice by South Africa for committing alleged acts of genocide.

Through his various sojourns, the point was always clear.  Israel was to be mildly rebuked, if at all, while Hamas was to be given the full chastising treatment as killers without a cause.  When the barbarians revolt against their imperial governors, they are to be both feared and reviled.  In June this year, for instance, Blinken stated on one of his countless missions for a non-existent peace that Hamas was “the only obstacle” to a ceasefire, a markedly jaundiced explanation given the broader programs and objects being pursued by the Israeli Defence Forces.  Hamas has been accused of being absolutist in its goals, but one can hardly exempt Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from the charge.  Not for Blinken: “I think it is clear to everyone around the world, that it’s on them [Hamas] and that they will have made a choice to continue a war that they started.”

On the issue of aid to Gaza’s strangled, dying population, Blinken has been, along with his equally ineffectual colleague in the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, cringingly ineffective.  Their October 13 letter sent to their Israeli counterparts made mention of several demands, including the entry of some 350 aid trucks into Gaza on a daily basis, and refraining from adopting laws, now in place, banning the UN Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA).  Each demand has been swatted back with a school child’s snotty petulance, and aid continues being blocked to various parts of Gaza.

On October 24, Americans for Justice in Palestine Action (AJP Action) “urgently” called on the Secretary of State “to stop wasting his time with failed diplomatic visits and to demand an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and Lebanon.”  Those at AJP Action must surely have realised by now that Blinken would be utterly rudderless without those failed visits.  Indeed, Osama Abu Irshaid, Executive Director of the organisation, went so far as to say that “Blinken’s diplomatic theatre is enabling Netanyahu’s war crimes.”  To arm and fund Israel “while requesting a ceasefire” was a policy both “hypocritical and ineffective.”  Such is the nature of that sort of theatre.

In the meantime, the tectonic plates of international relations are moving in other directions, a point that has been aided, not hindered, by the policy of this administration.  Through BRICS and other satellite fora, the United States is finding itself gradually outpaced and isolated, even as it continues to hide behind the slogan of an international rules-based order it did so much to create.  This is not to say that the US imperium has quite reached its terminus.  If anything, the Biden administration, through the good offices of Blinken, continues to insist on its vitality.  But US hegemony long left unchallenged is, most certainly, at an end.FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com. Read other articles by Binoy.

Voting Against Genocide – How Gaza Defeated the Democratic Establishment

by Ramzy Baroud Posted onNovember 15, 2024

Arab and Muslim American voters did not remove Democrats from office, nor did they cost Kamala Harris the Oval Office. They merely sent a strong message that Palestine matters, not only to Arabs and Muslims but to many Americans as well.

The ones who cost the Democrats the elections are the Democrats themselves. Their humiliating defeat on November 5 was due largely to their undeniable role in the Israeli war and genocide in Gaza.

Peter Beinart put it best in his November 7 op-ed in the New York Times, entitled “Democrats Ignored Gaza and Brought Down Their Party.”

“Israel’s slaughter and starvation of Palestinians – funded by U.S. taxpayers and live-streamed on social media,” according to Beinart, has “triggered one of the greatest surges in progressive activism in a generation”. The writer correctly indicates that the core of this activism was “Black Americans and the young”.

Undeniably, for the first time in US election history, Palestine has become a domestic American political issue – a nightmare realization for those who labored to maintain US foreign policy in the Middle East as an exclusive Israeli domain.

Aside from Arab voters, black voters and voters from other minority groups who prioritized Palestine, many white Americans felt the same way. This claim is particularly important as it suggests that American voters are challenging the identity politics paradigm, and are now thinking around common struggles, values and morality.

“Democrats may no longer be able to rely on young voters to boost numbers, as Harris appears on track to have the lowest support among voters aged 18-29 in this century,” a report in the British Independent newspaper noted. Knowing the relatively strong support for Palestine among young Americans, US politicians have much to worry about in coming elections.

We already know that support for Palestine is overwhelmingly strong among young Democrats. A poll conducted by Gallup in March 2023 indicated that, for the first time, Democrats’ “sympathies… now lie more with the Palestinians than the Israelis, 49% versus 38%.”

Even more astonishing, the overall US Democratic constituency is more pro-Palestine than Israel. According to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center last April, the overall young American population “are more likely to sympathize with the Palestinian people than the Israeli people.” While a third of adults under 30 sympathized “entirely or mostly” with Palestinians, only 14% sympathized with the Israelis.

These numbers did not seem to matter to the Democrats who continued to take for granted the votes of youth and other minority groups. They made a grave mistake.

The Biden Administration has played a central role in funding and sustaining the Israeli war machine, thus facilitating the Israeli genocide in Gaza. Millions of Americans took notice and acted upon their sense of collective rage to punish the Democrats for what they had done to the Palestinian people.

According to a report prepared for Brown University’s Costs of War project, the Biden Administration has granted Israel a record of at least $17.9 billion in military aid to Israel in the first year of the war. Additionally, according to a report published on October 4 by the non-profit investigative newspaper ProPublica, “the US has shipped more than 50,000 tons of weaponry” to Israel since October 7, 2023.

Merely hours after the US presidential election results were announced, the Israeli Ministry of Defense signed a deal “to acquire 25 F-15IA combat jets from U.S. manufacturer Boeing for $5.2 billion, with an option to get 25 more,” according to Defense News. In other words, Biden remains unrepentant.

Biden, Harris and others may twist the logic to justify their support for Israel in any way they wish. However, there can be no denying that their administration has played a leading role in the Israeli genocide in Gaza. For this, they were duly and deservedly penalized by American voters.

The understandable euphoria among many of Palestine’s supporters in the US notwithstanding, we must not harbor any illusions. Neither President-elect Donald Trump nor his entourage of right-wing politicians will be the saviors of Palestine.

We must recall that it was Trump’s first term in office that paved the road to the complete marginalization of the Palestinians. He did so by granting Israel sovereignty over occupied East Jerusalem, recognizing the illegal settlements as legitimate, waging financial warfare against Palestinians, and attempting to destroy the UN refugee agency, UNRWA, among other actions.

If Trump returns to his old destructive policies in Palestine, another war will certainly start.

This means that the pro-Palestine camp, which has managed to convert solidarity into decisive political action, must not wait for the new US administration to adopt a more sensible political line on Palestine. Judging by the history of Republican support for Israel, no such sensibility should be expected.

Thus, it is time to build on the existing solidarity among all American groups that voted against genocide in the latest elections. This is the perfect opportunity to translate votes into sustained action and pressure so that all aspects of the US government may hear and heed the deafening chants of ‘ceasefire now’, and ‘free, free Palestine.’

This time around, however, these chants are backed by solid evidence that American voters are capable of destabilizing the entire political paradigm, as they did on November 5, 2024.

Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of six books. His latest book, co-edited with Ilan Pappé, is Our Vision for Liberation: Engaged Palestinian Leaders and Intellectuals Speak Out. His other books include My Father was a Freedom Fighter and The Last Earth. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net.

Voting against Genocide – How Gaza Defeated the Democratic Establishment

By Ramzy Baroud

November 14, 2024

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.


Pro-Palestinian demonstrators march back to George Washington University's University Yard on 7 May 2024 in Washington, DC (AFP)

Arab and Muslim American voters did not remove Democrats from office, nor did they cost Kamala Harris the Oval Office. They merely sent a strong message that Palestine matters, not only to Arabs and Muslims but to many Americans as well.

The ones who cost the Democrats the elections are the Democrats themselves. Their humiliating defeat on November 5 was due largely to their undeniable role in the Israeli war and genocide in Gaza.

Peter Beinart put it best in his November 7 op-ed in the New York Times, entitled “Democrats Ignored Gaza and Brought Down Their Party.”

“Israel’s slaughter and starvation of Palestinians — funded by U.S. taxpayers and live-streamed on social media,” according to Beinart, has “triggered one of the greatest surges in progressive activism in a generation”. The writer correctly indicates that the core of this activism was “Black Americans and the young”.

Undeniably, for the first time in US election history, Palestine has become a domestic American political issue – a nightmare realization for those who labored to maintain US foreign policy in the Middle East as an exclusive Israeli domain.

Aside from Arab voters, black voters and voters from other minority groups who prioritized Palestine, many white Americans felt the same way. This claim is particularly important as it suggests that American voters are challenging the identity politics paradigm, and are now thinking around common struggles, values and morality.

“Democrats may no longer be able to rely on young voters to boost numbers, as Harris appears on track to have the lowest support among voters aged 18-29 in this century,” a report in the British Independent newspaper noted. Knowing the relatively strong support for Palestine among young Americans, US politicians have much to worry about in coming elections.

We already know that support for Palestine is overwhelmingly strong among young Democrats. A poll conducted by Gallup in March 2023 indicated that, for the first time, Democrats’ “sympathies .. now lie more with the Palestinians than the Israelis, 49% versus 38%.”

Even more astonishing, the overall US Democratic constituency is more pro-Palestine than Israel. According to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center last April, the overall young American population “are more likely to sympathize with the Palestinian people than the Israeli people.” While a third of adults under 30 sympathized “entirely or mostly” with Palestinians, only 14% sympathized with the Israelis.

These numbers did not seem to matter to the Democrats who continued to take for granted the votes of youth and other minority groups. They made a grave mistake.

The Biden Administration has played a central role in funding and sustaining the Israeli war machine, thus facilitating the Israeli genocide in Gaza. Millions of Americans took notice and acted upon their sense of collective rage to punish the Democrats for what they had done to the Palestinian people.

According to a report prepared for Brown University’s Costs of War project, the Biden Administration has granted Israel a record of at least $17.9 billion in military aid to Israel in the first year of the war. Additionally, according to a report published on October 4 by the non-profit investigative newspaper ProPublica, “the US has shipped more than 50,000 tons of weaponry” to Israel since October 7, 2023.

Merely hours after the US presidential election results were announced, the Israeli Ministry of Defense signed a deal “to acquire 25 F-15IA combat jets from U.S. manufacturer Boeing for $5.2 billion, with an option to get 25 more,” according to Defense News. In other words, Biden remains unrepentant.

Biden, Harris and others may twist the logic to justify their support for Israel in any way they wish. However, there can be no denying that their administration has played a leading role in the Israeli genocide in Gaza. For this, they were duly and deservedly penalized by American voters.

The understandable euphoria among many of Palestine’s supporters in the US notwithstanding, we must not harbor any illusions. Neither President-elect Donald Trump nor his entourage of right-wing politicians will be the saviors of Palestine.

We must recall that it was Trump’s first term in office that paved the road to the complete marginalization of the Palestinians. He did so by granting Israel sovereignty over occupied East Jerusalem, recognizing the illegal settlements as legitimate, waging financial warfare against Palestinians, and attempting to destroy the UN refugee agency, UNRWA, among other actions.

If Trump returns to his old destructive policies in Palestine, another war will certainly start.

This means that the pro-Palestine camp, which has managed to convert solidarity into decisive political action, must not wait for the new US administration to adopt a more sensible political line on Palestine. Judging by the history of Republican support for Israel, no such sensibility should be expected.

Thus, it is time to build on the existing solidarity among all American groups that voted against genocide in the latest elections. This is the perfect opportunity to translate votes into sustained action and pressure so that all aspects of the US government may hear and heed the deafening chants of ‘ceasefire now’, and ‘free, free Palestine.’

This time around, however, these chants are backed by solid evidence that American voters are capable of destabilizing the entire political paradigm, as they did on November 5, 2024.


ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers. Donate

Ramzy Baroud is a US-Palestinian journalist, media consultant, an author, internationally-syndicated columnist, Editor of Palestine Chronicle (1999-present), former Managing Editor of London-based Middle East Eye, former Editor-in-Chief of The Brunei Times and former Deputy Managing Editor of Al Jazeera online. Baroud’s work has been published in hundreds of newspapers and journals worldwide, and is the author of six books and a contributor to many others. Baroud is also a regular guest on many television and radio programs including RT, Al Jazeera, CNN International, BBC, ABC Australia, National Public Radio, Press TV, TRT, and many other stations. Baroud was inducted as an Honorary Member into the Pi Sigma Alpha National Political Science Honor Society, NU OMEGA Chapter of Oakland University, Feb 18, 2020.

 CAN THE UN SUSPEND ISRAEL?

Aidan Hehir Published November 10, 2024

THE CONVERSATION

Tanzanian Ambassador to the UN Salim A Salim announces that South Africa has been suspended from the UN General Assembly on November 12, 1974 

| United Nations

"Where is the UN?” is a question that has often been asked since the start of Israel’s military offensive in Gaza. As the death toll rises and the conflict spreads, the UN appears woefully unable to fulfil its mandate to save humanity “from the scourge of war” — as it was set up to do.

While the UN secretary-general, António Guterres, has repeatedly condemned Israel — and been banned from the country for his pains — his pleas have been ignored. Attempts by the UN to sanction Israel have also failed. UN sanctions require the UN Security Council’s consent. The US has used its power as a permanent member to veto draft resolutions seeking to do so.

There have also been calls to suspend Israel from the UN. On October 30, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Michael Fakhri, called on the UN General Assembly to suspend Israel’s membership because, as he said: “Israel is attacking the UN system.”

Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories, is reported to have told a news conference the same day that the UN should “consider the suspension of Israel’s credentials as a member of the UN until it ends violating international law and withdraws the ‘clearly unlawful’ occupation.”



Given the US’s veto power in the Security Council, it may be politically very difficult, but it is legally possible. And there’s a precedent

But suspending a member is more complicated and politically fraught than many appreciate.

Israel and the UN

For decades, Israel’s relationship with the UN has been fractious. This is primarily because of the UN’s stance on what it refers to as Israel’s “unlawful presence” in what it defines as “occupied territories” in Palestine. In the past 12 months of the latest conflict in Gaza, this relationship has deteriorated further.

Many have argued that Israel has repeatedly violated UN resolutions and treaties, including the genocide convention during its campaign in Gaza. Some UN officials have accused Israel — and certain Palestinian groups — of committing war crimes. Israel has also come into direct conflict with UN agencies — some 230 UN personnel have been killed during the offensive, and many governments and UN officials have alleged that Israel deliberately targeted UN peacekeepers in Lebanon.

But the enmity between Israel and the UN came to a head on October 28, when the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, banned the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) from operating inside Israel, sparking a wave of condemnation.

The UN’s powers

Given this open hostility towards the UN, it is not surprising that some are now calling for Israel’s membership to be suspended.

But can the UN legally suspend a member? The answer is yes. Under articles 5 and 6 of the UN charter, a member state may be suspended or expelled if it is found to have “persistently violated the principles contained in the present Charter.”

But articles 5 and 6 both state that suspension and expulsion require the consent of the General Assembly as well as “the recommendation of the Security Council.” As such, suspending Israel requires the consent of the five permanent Security Council members: the US, UK, China, Russia and France.

And, given the US’s past record and current president Joe Biden’s affirmation of his “ironclad support” for Israel, this is effectively inconceivable. But while it is, therefore, highly unlikely that articles 5 or 6 will be invoked against Israel, there remains a potentially feasible option.

The South Africa precedent

At the start of each annual General Assembly session, the credentials committee reviews submissions from each member state before they are formally admitted. Usually, this is a formality, but on September 27, 1974, the credentials of South Africa — which was then operating an apartheid system — were rejected.

Three days later, the General Assembly passed resolution 3207, which called on the Security Council to “review the relationship between the United Nations and South Africa in light of the constant violation by South Africa of the principles of the Charter.”

A draft resolution calling for South Africa’s expulsion was eventually put to the security council at the end of October, but it was vetoed by the US, the UK and France.

However, on November 12, the president of the General Assembly, Algeria’s Abdelaziz Bouteflika, ruled that given the credentials committee’s decision and the passing of resolution 3207, “the General Assembly refuses to allow the delegation of South Africa to participate in its work.” South Africa remained suspended from the General Assembly until June 1994, following the ending of apartheid.

It is important to note that South Africa was not formally suspended from the UN, only the General Assembly. Nonetheless, it was a hugely significant move.

A viable solution?

Could the same measure be applied against Israel and would it be effective? The South Africa case shows it is legally possible. It would also undoubtedly send a powerful message, simultaneously increasing Israel’s international isolation and restoring some much-needed faith in the UN.

The 79th session of the UN General Assembly began in September, so it’s too late for the credentials committee to reject Israel. But this could conceivably happen prior to the 80th session next year, if there was sufficient political will. But this is a big “if”.

Though a majority of states in the General Assembly are highly critical of Israel, many do not want the credentials committee to become more politically selective, because they fear this could be used against them in the future. Likewise, few want to incur the wrath of the US by suspending its ally.

As ever, what is legally possible and what is politically likely are two very different things.

The writer is Reader in International Relations at the University of Westminster in UK

Republished from The Conversation

Published in Dawn, EOS, November 10th, 2024

A summit to nowhere

Zahid Hussain 

November 13, 2024

 DAWN

AFTER silently watching Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza for the past one year, the leaders of the Arab and Muslim countries have once more met in Riyadh to discuss the escalating conflict.

The so-called international alliance conceived by Saudi Arabia, with its aim of pressing for the establishment of a Palestinian state, failed to formulate a concrete plan of action to stop the Israeli invasion that has been extended to Lebanon.

Interestingly, the resolution issued at the conclusion of the joint summit of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and Arab League is restricted to the usual condemnation of Israeli aggression. It doesn’t even plainly describe the ongoing Israeli military action in Gaza, which has killed more than 43,000 people, mostly women and children, as a genocide.

There is no suggestion to sever the diplomatic and trade ties with Israel that some of these countries continue to have, despite the war crimes being committed by the Zionist forces. With the complete blockade of the Gaza Strip, more than a million people face death by starvation and disease. Mere condemnation cannot stop Israel’s genocidal war. It is nothing short of a betrayal of the hapless people of Palestine.

In fact, the inaction of the Muslim world has given impunity to the Zionist state, which is now threatening to annihilate the entire occupied territory. The latest summit was held a year after a similar gathering in Riyadh. Then, too, the leaders had merely condemned the Israeli military action in Gaza. They could not agree on even a minimum plan of action to stop Israeli atrocities.

The OIC-Arab League resolution does not go beyond the usual condemnation of Israel.

They did not even leverage their oil and economic capabilities to apply pressure on countries supplying arms to Israel to stop the war. One year of war crimes doesn’t seem to have brought any change in their position, which can be described as capitulation. The resolution is as toothless as the previous one.

The most shocking part of the resolution is the decision “to affirm support and express appreciation for the tireless efforts made by the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Qatar in cooperation with the United States of America to achieve an immediate and permanent ceasefire in the Gaza Strip… “. It couldn’t get more outrageous given that the ongoing genocide in Gaza is essentially supported by the US. It is massive American military aid that has helped Israel sustain its war.

Notwithstanding the occasional rebuke by US officials, there has never been any real American pressure on Israel to implement a ceasefire. In fact, the Biden administration has repeatedly vetoed resolutions in the UN calling for one. Some of the Arab rulers are believed to have tacitly supported what Israel has described as its war against Hamas. Moreover, America has its bases in Arab countries, and concerns have been raised that they could have supplied Israel with weapons to kill Palestinians. These countries have not prohibited the use of these bases.

Significantly, the latest summit took place soon after Donald Trump’s victory, which has been hailed by some member countries, prompting observers to conclude that it was meant to send a message to the incoming US administration. It seems that the ‘international alliance’ is now pinning its hopes on the incoming Trump administration to get Israel to agree to a ceasefire and accept the creation of a Palestinian state.

For instance, while addressing a Council of Foreign Ministers preparatory meeting a day before the summit, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar expressed the hope that the incoming US administration would “lend its weight to reinvigorate efforts for peace in the Middle East”. His remarks show his utter ignorance about Trump’s hard-line approach to the Middle East conflict.

Such expectations from the president-elect, who is considered even more pro-Israel than the outgoing Biden administration, are unrealistic. During his election campaign, Trump had called on Israel to finish the offensive and “get the job done”. He has stated that he would “defend our friend and ally in the State of Israel like nobody has ever”.

How can one forget that in his previous term he shifted the American embassy to occupied Jerusalem? The move defied Washington’s earlier position of not recognising one of the most sacred of Islam’s holy places as Israel’s capital. In his previous term, Trump had also endorsed Israeli settlements in occupied West Bank, which are illegal under international law. Under the so-called Abraham Accords, he oversaw the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel, the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco.

Although Saudi Arabia did not enter into such an agreement, it did indicate its willingness to recognise Israel in return for security and economic benefits, though insisting there would be no diplomatic ties without a Palestinian state. Some analysts believe that the Riyadh summit has sent a clear signal to the incoming Trump administration that it can rely on the kingdom as a strong partner in extending American interests in the region. The summit has pushed for greater American leverage in bringing the war to an end.

But it is very clear that the incoming Trump administration will not push for the establishment of a Palestinian state as envisaged by the ‘international alliance’. There has been no mention of the two-state solution in his recent statements on the Middle East conflict.

Since winning the election, Trump has spoken to the Israeli prime minister more than once. Therefore, it’s not surprising to see the right-wing Israeli government harden its position after Trump’s election.

In a recent statement, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar opposed the establishment of a Palestinian state, saying it was “unrealistic”. Surely the inaction of the Arab and Muslim countries has made things worse for the Palestinians. The joint resolution indicates that these countries do not have any intention of using their leverage to put pressure on Israel and its allies to end the war.

The writer is an author and journalist.

zhussain100@yahoo.com

X: @hidhussain

Published in Dawn, November 13th, 2024

FORWARD TO THE PAST

Trump taps fierce UN critic to serve as envoy to it

by Mike Lillis and Mychael Schnell 

- 11/11/24

President-elect Trump’s nomination of Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations sets the stage for one of the organization’s most vocal and combative critics to have a powerful seat at its table.

Stefanik, 40, the fourth-ranking House Republican and a devoted Trump loyalist, has little foreign policy experience. But she has built a reputation over the last year as a leading champion of Israel, in part by repeatedly hammering the U.N. for its reproach of the country’s military response to last year’s attacks by Hamas. In September, she accused the organization of being infected by “antisemitic rot.”

Her nomination as America’s top envoy to the U.N. sends an early signal that Trump intends to side squarely with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a conservative Trump ally who has ignored President Biden’s calls for a regional cease-fire, as the Middle Eastern conflict expands and intensifies.

The posting also sends a broader message to the world that Trump’s “America First” approach — which envisions a shrinking role for the United States in world diplomacy and global affairs — is likely to reign supreme in his second term.

That strategy is likely to surface most prominently in Ukraine, where Trump has declined to commit more military support as Kyiv continues the years-long battle against Russia’s invading forces. Stefanik called for “devastating action” to defeat Russian President Vladimir Putin early in the war, but voted against a multibillion-dollar aid package to Ukraine earlier this year.

In accepting the nomination Monday, Stefanik defended Trump’s shift toward isolationism, suggesting it would nudge America’s allies into taking a more active role in the pursuit of global peace.

“America continues to be the beacon of the world,” she said in a statement, “but we expect and must demand that our friends and allies be strong partners in the peace we seek.”

Trump’s Republican allies on Capitol Hill quickly hailed the nomination on Monday, praising Stefanik as a “fantastic choice” for the position.

“She is extremely qualified for this new role in public service, and the House’s loss will be a huge gain for the Trump Administration and the country. There is nobody better to represent President Trump’s foreign policy and America’s values at the United Nations than Elise Stefanik,” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) said in a statement.

But her promotion to global envoy is sure to ring alarm bells among both traditional conservatives, who still support a muscular defense of NATO and America’s overseas allies, and Democrats, who consider Stefanik to be an unscrupulous political opportunist and a blind sycophant to Trump.

“Trump’s pick of Rep. Stefanik is a gift to Vladamir Putin,” said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “She abandoned Ukrainians in April, and this further signals Donald Trump and MAGA’s retreat from the global stage.”


Stefanik’s imminent jump to the administration immediately sparked the race to replace her in GOP leadership, with a handful of GOP lawmakers already announcing their bids. It could also complicate Trump’s ambitious 100-day legislative agenda by cutting into what is already expected to be a slim majority for the House Republicans.

Although Stefanik serves on the House Armed Services and Intelligence committees, she has made greater waves from her perch as a senior member of the Education and Workforce Committee, where she was in line for the gavel before jumping into House leadership.

But the New York Republican saw her star rise rapidly in December when, during a hearing of the Education committee, she questioned a trio of university presidents about antisemitism on their campuses following Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel — an episode that went viral and prompted two of the three leaders to resign from their posts.


Since then, the House GOP conference chair has made combating antisemitism a prime part of her portfolio on Capitol Hill, a posture that has included incisive criticism of the United Nations.

In October, for example, the New York Republican appeared to threaten U.S. funding for the U.N. over the Biden administration’s alleged “silence” regarding perceived antisemitism in the organization. The statement was in reaction to the Palestinian Authority eyeing an effort to expel Israel from the United Nations.

“Should the Palestinian Authority succeed in their antisemitic pursuit, it would result in a complete reassessment of U.S. funding of the United Nations. American taxpayers have no interest in continuing to fund an organization that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have allowed to rot with antisemitism,” Stefanik wrote.


She also took a jab at the United Nations in her May address before the Israeli Knesset, when she became the highest-ranking House member to visit Israel after the Oct. 7 attack.

“When the enemy is inside the gates of the United Nations, America must be the one to call it by its name and destroy it,” Stefanik said. “President Trump understood that, and B’ezrat hashem, we will return to that strategy soon.”

Stefanik is already making clear that Israel will remain a top priority of hers if she is confirmed as ambassador: The congresswoman is scheduled to meet with Israeli President Isaac Herzog on Tuesday, according to The Times of Israel.

The nomination highlights Trump’s penchant for rewarding his most loyal allies with plum assignments. It also marks the culmination of Stefanik’s head-snapping turn from moderate lawmaker with a reputation for reaching across the aisle to fierce partisan who emerged as one of Trump’s most ardent defenders on Capitol Hill. That support first gained prominence during Trump’s first impeachment in 2019, and it only grew louder in the wake of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

That loyalty to the former president was quickly rewarded in the months following the rampage when House Republicans — infuriated that Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.), a member of their own leadership ranks, had voted to impeach Trump for his role in the attack — voted to oust Cheney and promote Stefanik as the conference chair.

As House investigators began examining the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, Stefanik blamed then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for the rampage. It was a familiar argument — one initiated by Trump.

UN officials plan to charm Stefanik

Officials at the international body believe they’re better off working with Trump’s envoy than fighting with her.


Elise Stefanik is a onetime moderate Republican who has transformed herself into a pro-Donald Trump loyalist. | Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

By Nahal Toosi and Robbie Gramer
11/11/2024

POLITICO US

U.N. officials worry that when President-elect Donald Trump takes office, he’ll slash the organization’s funding and trash it over alleged anti-Israel bias.

But when Elise Stefanik — Trump’s pick to be the new ambassador to the institution — arrives, she’ll be greeted with a smile.

That’s because U.N. officials are generally of the mind that embracing the new envoy is the best way to mitigate what is likely to be a damaging four years under Trump, according to eight U.N. diplomats and others who are in touch with officials there.

U.N. officials were more prepared for the possibility of a Trump victory this year than in 2016. They know from experience that there’s no point in picking a fight with the new envoy, who is on a glide-path to confirmation by the Republican-controlled Senate after Trump takes office. Instead, U.N. officials are likely to put on a charm offensive, from Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to the lowliest staff assistant.

“It’s in any secretary general’s interest to have the most constructive possible relationship with a U.S. permanent representative,” a senior U.N. diplomat said, noting that Guterres saw himself as getting along well with Trump during the president-elect’s first term. “She seems to have a close relationship with Trump, and that’s what matters.”

Like others interviewed, the diplomat was granted anonymity to speak candidly.

An African diplomat in touch with U.N. officials said the sentiment was widespread in New York’s Turtle Bay neighborhood, where memories are still fresh about Trump’s first term.

“Now they all know they need to work with [the Trump administration], and it’s better to work with them than fight them,” the African diplomat said.

Stefanik, a GOP House member from New York, has publicly berated the U.N. for perceived anti-Israel bias, including by criticizing some of the resolutions passed by the organization. She has said the U.S. should consider funding cuts to punish the U.N. for such actions.

Such statements don’t surprise U.N. officials. Still, many at the U.N. believe Stefanik’s close relationship to Trump means she will speak for him with no caveats — a clarity that can prove useful in diplomacy.

Aides to Stefanik did not respond to requests for comment.

U.N. diplomats had eagerly anticipated Trump’s choice for the role since he won election this month. Stefanik wasn’t on many of their radars until last week. But her history only added to expectations that the incoming administration will prioritize cutting U.N. funding and promoting a pro-Israel vision.

Stefanik is a onetime moderate Republican who has transformed herself into a pro-Trump loyalist. She stood up for Trump relentlessly when he faced impeachment.

Many at the U.N. believe Stefanik’s close relationship to Trump means she will speak for him with no caveats — a clarity that can prove useful in diplomacy. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

She’s also been one of the most pro-Israel voices in Congress. She drew the spotlight by slamming university leaders for their responses to antisemitism on college campuses amid protests against the Israel-Hamas war.

She has voiced support for cutting U.N. funding because of perceived anti-Israel bias at the world body. But Republicans have also long had other reasons for wanting to reduce U.S. support for the U.N., including questions about its effectiveness and allegations of previous corruption.

Several U.N.-based diplomats warned that if Trump reduces U.S. funding, he may not like the trade-offs.

“Whatever the MAGA team may think of the U.N., it’s also true that China will fill whatever vacuum they leave behind,” warned one of them. If confirmed for the job, Stefanik will need to balance Trump’s desire to act tough on China with his distaste for the world body.

Turtle Bay is, however, bracing for an era of austerity. U.N. officials have said for months that, independent of potential U.S. funding cuts, they’ve been looking at liquidity issues and seeking ways to save money.

Several U.N. diplomats said they expected the U.S. to zero-out funding for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, or UNRWA, which oversees aid to Gaza entirely. “We have to plan as if U.S. funding for UNRWA will never come back,” said a U.N.-based diplomat.

Some diplomats contend U.S. cuts to the U.N. — an issue on which Congress would get a say — can be managed if they aren’t too steep.

“We’re in a more resilient position for core funding … than we were three, four years ago,” the senior U.N. diplomat said.

But plenty of people at the U.N. are nervous about the money flow, and they speak of it in terms of exhaustion. They question whether the U.S. is still reliable.

“It’s not related to her,” one U.N. diplomat said of Stefanik. “It’s the basic question, what is going to be the stand of the U.S.?”

Trump is putting Stefanik in his Cabinet, but her influence may be hemmed in by the future secretary of State and national security adviser, both key diplomatic players in any administration.

When Nikki Haley served as Trump’s U.N. ambassador during his first term, she did not get along with his first secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, and created her own power center. The former South Carolina governor claimed in a memoir that Tillerson tried to persuade her to work with him to undermine Trump. Tillerson has denied this.

But there also were rumblings that Haley was drawing too much attention in an administration where the president liked the limelight. One senior White House official said Haley “flew too close to the sun.” Haley subsequently ran against Trump for the GOP presidential nomination, and he declared on Saturday that he would not invite her to serve in his second administration.

Based on her history with Trump so far, Stefanik is unlikely to try to outshine or outmaneuver the president-elect.

While Stefanik has little diplomatic background, her time in the GOP House leadership has given her experience that can come in handy at the United Nations, where persuading other countries to vote for your priorities is critical.

“A lot of what you learn in leadership in the House of Representatives carries over to how you put together a coalition in New York — it’s the same skill set,” said Peter Yeo, senior vice president of the U.N. Foundation.

Nick Reisman contributed to this report from Albany, New York.

‘NYTimes’ biased coverage of Amsterdam soccer violence attempts to hide Israeli racism

The New York Times buried the fact that racist Israeli soccer fans instigated attacks in Amsterdam, and instead pushed a false narrative that the violence was driven by antisemitism.

Media Analysis
By James North 

 November 10, 2024
MONDOWEISS

New York Times headquarters. (Photo: Wikipedia)

The New York Times report on the recent soccer clashes in Amsterdam was so biased that you wouldn’t be entirely surprised if you found out that Israel’s propaganda/disinformation ministry had kidnapped the paper’s reporters and put guns to their heads.

At this site, Sana Saaed has already done an impressive post surveying the widespread global media bias about the events. But, unfortunately, the New York Times is the most important source of coverage of Israel/Palestine for Americans. The Times sets the tone for the cable TV networks, and other U.S. papers have cut back or ended their foreign coverage. So a closer scrutiny of its ongoing slant is indispensable.

The Times report, which started on page 1, used the word “antisemitic” six times, beginning in the headline. The first six paragraphs uniformly described the “Israeli soccer fans” as the victims, recounting their injuries, and dwelling on the Israeli government’s chartering of “at least three flights to bring Israeli citizens home,” insinuating that innocent people had to completely flee the country for their lives.

You had to jump to paragraph 7, buried on an inside page, to learn that the Israeli fans had, in fact, been violent and provocative the night before the game: they “vandalized a taxi and burned a Palestinian flag.” On game day itself, Israeli fans shouted “an anti-Arab chant,” but the Times never bothered to tell us what they were shouting. (Reports elsewhere said that one of the chants was: “Why is school out in Gaza? There are no children left there.”)

After these brief hints that at least some of the Israelis had not behaved like peaceful sports fans, the Times got back to hammering away at the antisemitism theme. The next to last paragraph is a cunning example of the slant.

To further illustrate the alleged rise in antisemitism in Europe, the paper said:


“Earlier this year, when the Netherlands opened a National Holocaust Museum — almost 80 years after three-quarters of the Dutch Jewish population was killed in the Holocaust — an angry crowd of pro-Palestinian demonstrators gathered outside and yelled, ‘There is a holocaust in Gaza.’”

1.) The murder of Dutch Jews, although of course tragic, has nothing to do with Israel’s murder of Gazans today. And if you are going to bring up percentages, what proportion of the Gazan people are also already dead? 2.) Outside a Holocaust museum is an entirely appropriate place to protest another holocaust that is ongoing. 3.) The Times dismisses the demonstrators as “angry” and “yelling,” loaded words that the reporters left out of their vocabulary in their earlier brief mentions of the chants from the visiting Israelis.

The Times could have reported this story more fairly. By contrast, let’s look at how it was covered in the Jewish Daily Forward. A reporter there named Arno Rosenfeld apparently knows how to use the telephone and/or the internet, because he was able to quickly get through to Amsterdam’s Jewish community, an obvious move that the (three) Times reporters failed to do.

Rosenfeld did report that many Amsterdam Jews were in fact fearful after the violence. But he also informed Forward readers that there was another side to the story:

But some Dutch Jews noted that roving bands of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans had spent Tuesday and Wednesday nights marauding through the city center chanting racist anti-Arab slogans, climbing a facade to rip a Palestinian flag off the second story of an apartment building and assaulting a Moroccan taxi driver.

Jelle Zijlstra, who is Jewish and works as a community organizer in Amsterdam, made a post that went viral on Instagram stating that ‘multiple truths can exist at the same time.’ It highlighted both the assaults on Israelis and footage of the fans shouting ‘F— Palestine’ the night before.

There was definitely antisemitism involved in some of the events that took place, Zjilstra said in an interview. ‘Were Jews attacked in the streets? Yes, but those Jews were also violent hooligans.’”

Arno Rosenfeld showed that reporting on the Amsterdam events with balance and fairness was not impossible. Maybe the New York Times should offer him a job?

No, there were no ‘antisemitic pogroms’ in Amsterdam. Here’s what really happened.

Media claims of ‘antisemitic pogroms’ against Israeli fans in Amsterdam are the latest in a pattern of false narratives fueling anti-Muslim violence and justifying the genocide in Gaza.

By Sana Saeed 

 November 9, 2024 
MONDOWEISS

A crowd of Israelis tear down a Palestinian flag hanging on a building in the city of Amsterdam. Hundreds of Israelis and fans of the notoriously racist Maccabi Tel Aviv soccer team had traveled to the city for a match in the city. Following a string of attacks and vandalism carried out by Israelis, the Maccabi fans were targeted in what the media dubbed an ‘antisemitic pogrom’. (Screenshot, X)


“Olé, olé!

Olé, olé, olé!

Let the IDF win and fuck the Arabs!

Olé, olé!

Olé, olé, olé!

Why is school out in Gaza? There are no children left there!”

On the night of November 7th, there was an anti-Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam as young Dutch Moroccans on scooters descended onto the streets to assault Israeli Jewish football fans.

At least, that’s the story being told in Western newsrooms and by American and European leaders as the Israeli extermination of Gaza – especially the north – continues unencumbered.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called it a “horrific antisemitic incident.”

President Joe Biden released a statement on X saying “the Antisemitic attacks on Israeli soccer fans in Amsterdam are despicable and echo dark moments in history when Jews were persecuted.” He ended by reiterating “We must relentlessly fight Antisemitism, wherever it emerges.”

Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof promised that “the perpetrators will be tracked down and prosecuted.”

EU commissioner Ursula Von Der Leyen gave the reminder that “antisemitism has absolutely no place in Europe.”

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated “the news out of Amsterdam last night is horrifying. This is a dark moment for our world — and one we have seen before.”

The Anti-Defamation League called it a “modern day pogrom”, its CEO Jonathan Greenblatt drawing comparisons to Kristallnacht, saying that “Jews on the streets of Amsterdam were hunted, chased, attacked and forced to hide from an antisemitic mob whose goal was to harm as many Jews as possible.”

Headlines across U.S. news coverage, especially, signaled similar alarm: “Violent Attacks in Amsterdam Tied to Antisemitism”, “‘Scooter Youths,’ Not Soccer Fans, Hunt Jews in Amsterdam”, “Israeli soccer fans suffer ‘anti-Semitic attacks’ in violent Amsterdam incident: Officials”, “Amsterdam bans protests after ‘antisemitic squads’ attack Israeli soccer fans”, “Israeli Soccer Fans Targeted in ‘Antisemitic’ Attacks In Amsterdam”.

But that’s not what happened.

On November 5th, hundreds of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans – reportedly accompanied by Mossad agents – had flown into the city for a game against Ajax FC. It was reported, in the preceding days, that pro-Palestinian groups were planning a large protest outside the stadium against the presence of the Israeli football team. In the two days before the game, there were many reported incidents of violence and intimidation from the Israeli fans – including anti-Arab chants, attacking taxi drivers, ripping down Palestinian flags and attacking homes with any Palestinian imagery.

Emerging video evidence and testimonies from Amsterdam residents (here, here and here for instance) indicate that the initial violence came from Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, who also disrupted a moment of silence for the Valencia flood victims.

But despite that footage and Amsterdammer testimonies, coverage – across international media, especially in the United States – has failed to contextualize the counter-attacks against the anti-Arab Israeli mob.

Where there have been mentions of the actions of the Maccabi fans, the critical context of anti-Arab violence and chants is simply an additional detail versus the foundation of the counter-violence. The context of the violence and racism against Arabs is also downplayed, with less severe language being used to describe it.

Note this excerpt from a Reuters report on the Amsterdam incident:


Videos on social media showed riot police in action, with some attackers shouting anti-Israeli slurs. Footage also showed Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters chanting anti-Arab slogans before Thursday evening’s match.

Wishing death to Arabs at the hands of the IDF and mocking dead Palestinian children, we are told, is a slogan. Forcing Israelis to say “Free Palestine!” is a slur. Through the use of these two words, the weight of violence and of blame is immediately shifted to those victimized.

Then there’s this Channel 4 news report, which shows a bit of a masterful narrative manipulation. It begins with images of people draped in Palestinian flags, marching in the streets of Amsterdam, with the voiceover talking about the ‘shocking’ violence, and how “men on scooters hunted down Israelis to beat them”. We immediately see footage of random Israelis being beaten in the streets and then a jump to the Dutch PM condemning these actions. When presented this way, it is shocking – your initial introduction to this story is that Israeli Jewish football fans were ‘hunted’ and assaulted in the streets by pro-Palestinian hooligans.

A little over a minute into the three-minute report, we move onto what is the critical context: 36 hours of violence and racist slurs and chants by the Maccabi fans. The report spends about 40 seconds going over it, only to return to framing the incident as antisemitic. It concludes with a brief acknowledgement that Maccabi fans have a history of anti-Arab, anti-Palestinian racism but its final note is about the historical memory of Jews with regards to being ‘hunted and chased’ in the streets.

Nevermind the present experience of Arabs, of Muslims being exterminated in their homes, hospitals, schools and tents by a Jewish military.

It’s also worth mentioning here that during the course of writing this piece, Sky News posted and deleted a video report on the racist Israeli mob’s instigation and violence — only to repost the report, with its content and copy edited to center the “antisemitism” framing. In other words, a real-time manufacturing of a story to fit a specific narrative, despite all the evidence available. Few things have captured the intentional complicity of the news media, in the genocide of Palestinians, as transparently and poignantly as this.


The coverage of events in Amsterdam reveals a troubling, but transparent and tired pattern: it serves as a rhetorical tool to justify violence against Arabs and Muslims, whether in Gaza or within the streets of Europe.

The coverage of events in Amsterdam reveals a troubling, but transparent and tired pattern: it serves as a rhetorical tool to justify violence against Arabs and Muslims, whether in Gaza or within the streets of Europe. Each narrative, whether centered around October 7th or November 7th, invariably positions Jewish suffering and historical trauma at its core, thus reinforcing the notion of a Jewish right to violence. Any contextualization that portrays Israelis or Jewish Zionist as aggressors threatens to disrupt this carefully curated monopoly on suffering.

In the case of Amsterdam, the media framing and sensational headlines reinforce an image of the Israeli mob as victims, besieged by an enraged Arab mob that “hunts Jews” in the streets. The timing—occurring just before the anniversary of Kristallnacht—adds a haunting resonance that has allowed the narrative of Jewish persecution to be put at the center of coverage and condemnation.

This framing, both directly and indirectly, echoes Israeli and Zionist propaganda reliant on manufactured antisemitism and long-standing racist tropes about Arabs and Muslim; it perpetuates a narrative of eternal victimhood that is wielded to justify the ongoing extermination of 2.2 million Palestinians. And thus our media gives permission for violence – American, European and Israeli – toward Arabs and Muslims. It gives permission for the U.S.-backed Israeli eradication of Palestinians because, we are told again and again, that Jews are not safe anywhere.

This framing, both directly and indirectly, echoes Israeli and Zionist propaganda reliant on manufactured antisemitism and long-standing racist tropes about Arabs and Muslim; it perpetuates a narrative of eternal victimhood that is wielded to justify the ongoing extermination of 2.2 million Palestinians.

This has lent itself to fabricated stories – about beheaded babies, babies in ovens, mass rapes of Israeli women, command centers under hospitals, UNRWA involvement in October 7th, journalists as “terrorists”, unfettered antisemitism on college campuses and pogroms against Jews in Amsterdam – defining American, Canadian and European coverage of the genocide of Palestinians. The claims and experiences of Israelis, of pro-Israel Jews are presented as sacrosanct, to question them is antisemitic; it is to deny and support the sort of dehumanization and violence that led to the Jewish Holocaust.

The claims and experiences of Palestinians, of Arabs and Muslims, might be tragic but we must always consider Jewish suffering and trauma first and foremost – that is what must always be protected, always at the helm of our outrage.

The coverage of the anti-racist counter-attacks in Amsterdam exemplified that: on the same day Western leaders flocked to condemn a non-existent pogrom against Jews, the UN Office on Human Rights released a report indicating that 70% of those killed in Gaza are women and children – mainly children, between the ages of 5 and 9. And the lack of condemnation, of outrage – even acknowledgement – of that from Western leaders and newsrooms, who are culpable in that 70%, is why there is condemnation of a pogrom that never happened.

SEE

Dozens detained after protesters defy ban in Amsterdam

Israeli fans attack pro-Palestine supporters in Amsterdam