Why has China's manufacturing industry become a 'scapegoat' for the US? Global Times editorial

By Global Times

Published: Apr 18, 2024

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202404/1310883.shtml

On April 17, the Office of the US Trade Representative once again wielded the "Section 301" stick, this time targeting China's maritime, logistics and shipbuilding sectors. On the same day, the Biden administration also called for a significant increase in import tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum products. These moves are another dangerous step by Washington dragging the US and China into an escalating trade war vortex, not only a misinterpretation or even distortion of China's manufacturing competitiveness but also a deviation from the fundamental principles of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

This is the latest Section 301 investigation launched by the US against China. Although the current scope of the investigation is somewhat different from the past, the fundamental purpose remains the same: to misinterpret normal trade and investment activities as threats to US national security and corporate interests, and to blame China for its own industrial issues. Recently, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai claimed in a hearing that China's alleged unfair policies and practices "have devastated many working communities and industries" across the US, citing industries such as steel, aluminum, and electric vehicles as examples. However, according to the White House, imports of steel from China only account for 0.6 percent of total US steel demand, far less than countries like Canada and Mexico. Not to mention, due to high tariffs, Chinese electric vehicles have hardly entered the US market, so where does the claim of "devastating" come from?

In the face of the numerous groundless accusations in the US application document, China, with frankness and integrity, naturally fears no trouble and will staunchly defend its own rights and interests. The development journey of China's manufacturing industry is evident to the world, and it can be boldly stated that the development of China's industries is the result of enterprises' technological innovation and active participation in market competition. Right and wrong have their own clear distinctions; regardless of how Washington tries to label China with various new and old accusations, it will not change the fact that the US is engaging in protectionism and unilateralism. The previous US administration's initiation of the Section 301 investigation against China and imposition of tariffs on China have been ruled by the WTO to have violated WTO rules and have faced opposition from numerous WTO members. This time will be no exception.

At this juncture, Washington's sudden concentrated attacks on China's manufacturing industry are, to some extent, influenced by the factors of the US elections. The Biden administration probably hopes to win the votes of blue-collar workers in swing states by doing so. But looking beyond the surface, behind China's manufacturing industry becoming the "scapegoat" for Washington, there is a fundamental issue - the US has yet to truly face up to the development of China's manufacturing industry and economy. If Washington cannot have a clearer understanding of "Made in China," then the future of China-US economic and trade relations will inevitably encounter obstacles and challenges.

The rise of China's manufacturing industry, especially in heavy industries such as steel, shipbuilding, and railway equipment, is a natural result of resource optimization in the process of global economic integration. The journey of China's manufacturing industry to its current state, with strong competitiveness and vitality, has not been easy. It has been achieved through overcoming obstacles, backed by a large market size, efficient infrastructure, a well-developed supply chain system, and continuously improving technological innovation capabilities. Relying on unfair means to "force growth" will not lead to the full blossoming of "Made in China." Washington should be aware of this, as the traditional manufacturing industry in the US, represented by the shipbuilding industry, lost its competitive advantage due to excessive protectionism many years ago.

The crisis currently facing the traditional manufacturing industry in the US should serve as a wake-up call for Washington. It should be a moment for deep reflection, rather than being used as a tool for elections or as an excuse for cracking down on China. How to revitalize the declining traditional manufacturing industry in the US, and how to move economic development from virtual to real, are crucial matters concerning the national interests of the US. Choosing to blame others will only worsen the situation. Compared to unilateral investigations, the more optimal solution for Washington should be to follow the trend of globalization, adhere to the principle of comparative advantage and market economic laws, and develop industries that align with their own factor endowments, rather than attempting to help disadvantaged industries with trade protection. Doing so will ultimately be futile.

China has achieved economic leaps through continuous opening-up, and it will continue to move forward firmly on this path in the future. As the two largest economies in the world, China and the US should also work together to maintain the stability of the global industrial chain and promote global economic growth on the basis of mutual respect and equal benefits. We urge the US government to recognize the achievements of China's manufacturing industry, respect the rules and direction of globalization, and stop wielding the "Section 301" stick recklessly. This could be the first step toward a more constructive relationship.

Why I was banned from Germany

In the name of protecting Israel’s security, the German government has sunk to farcical new authoritarian lows.

By Yanis Varoufakis

17 April 2024

https://www.newstatesman.com/diary/2024/04/cancelled-germany-yanis-varoufakis-israel-palestine

As I write these lines, I am banned not only from stepping on German soil but, remarkably, also from connecting via video link to any event in Germany. Why?

The solace of solidarity

On 8 October, a day after Hamas attacked Israel, I was in Berlin and found out about the previous day’s events during a TV interview. To the question “Do you condemn Hamas?” I replied:

“I condemn every single atrocity, whomever is the perpetrator or the victim. What I do not condemn is armed resistance to an apartheid system designed as part of a slow-burning, but inexorable, ethnic cleansing programme. As a European, it is important to refrain from condemning either the Israelis or the Palestinians when it is us, Europeans, who have caused this never-ending tragedy: after practising rabid anti-Semitism for centuries, leading up to the uniquely vile Holocaust, we have been complicit for decades with the slow genocide of Palestinians, as if two wrongs make one right.”

Days later I was disinvited by Vienna’s Academy of Fine Arts from delivering the prestigious Otto Wagner Lecture. Then, on 16 February, at Berlin’s Babylon theatre, it was the premier for In the Eye of the Storm: The Political Odyssey of Yanis Varoufakis, a six-part documentary by the British film-maker and philosopher Raoul Martinez. The police leaned heavily on the Babylon’s proprietor to cancel the event. Asked for their reasons, the authorities simply replied: “Varoufakis.” Defiantly, Babylon’s Jewish proprietor told the police that he wouldn’t budge. It was truly touching to see him, along with Jewish, Palestinian and German supporters, stand together in solidarity and prevent the police from raiding the event.

The age of Staatsräson

A month ago, I received an email from my German publisher, Verlag Antje Kunstmann. It warned me that my participation in the Palestine Congress, an event scheduled to take place on the weekend of 13-14 April, and which had been organised by my political party in Germany (MeRA25) along with Germany’s Jewish Voice for Peace, would “overshadow” my next book’s reception in Germany. My association with a publisher that had issued six of my books in Germany over a dozen years came to a sad end.

As the body count in Gaza mounted and hearings at the International Court of Justice challenged Germany’s official policy of Staatsräson (Israel’s security is Germany’s raison d’être), the authorities began to lash out. The case of my colleague Iris Hefets is exemplary. Iris, an Israeli psychoanalyst in Berlin, was arrested on charges of anti-Semitism for walking alone on the street with a placard reading: “As an Israeli and as a Jew, stop the genocide in Gaza.”

Behind police lines

On 12 April, Ghassan Abu-Sittah, the British-Palestinian rector of the University of Glasgow, was prevented from entering Germany to join us at the Palestine Congress. He was deported to the UK after hours of interrogation at the airport. Meanwhile, 2,500 police mobilised outside the event and harassed attendees. A young Jewish activist holding a placard with the words “Jews against genocide” was arrested. As he was led away, only half-jokingly, he asked the policemen: “Would it have been OK if it read ‘Jews support genocide?’”

Our congress started with only the fraction of attendees who managed to get through police lines. Shortly before I was due to address the audience via video link, the police invaded the auditorium, grabbed the microphones and tore out the wires of the live-streaming equipment. I recorded the speech I was unable to deliver and posted it on my personal blog. The authorities were not pleased.

On Saturday 13 April, I was issued a Betätigungsverbot – a ban on any political activity that has been used only a few times against Islamic State operatives. Our lawyers reminded the authorities that, besides being an EU citizen, in 2019 I was a candidate in Germany for the European Parliament, winning a respectable 135,000 votes. After a long, embarrassed silence, the Betätigungsverbot was replaced with an Einreiseverbot – a “softer” entry ban. To this day, the German authorities have refused my requests for a written statement on their rationale.

Draconian Deutschland

It is clear that Germany’s Staatsräson is not about protecting Jews. It is about protecting the right of Israel to commit any war crime of its choice. It is also a sad reflection on a waning economic power that is embracing an increasingly farcical authoritarianism.

LEAKED NYT GAZA MEMO TELLS JOURNALISTS TO AVOID WORDS “GENOCIDE,” “ETHNIC CLEANSING,” AND “OCCUPIED TERRITORY”

Amid the internal battle over the New York Times’s coverage of Israel’s war, top editors handed down a set of directives.

Jeremy Scahill, Ryan Grim

April 15, 2024

https://theintercept.com/2024/04/15/nyt-israel-gaza-genocide-palestine-coverage/

THE NEW YORK TIMES instructed journalists covering Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip to restrict the use of the terms “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” and to “avoid” using the phrase “occupied territory” when describing Palestinian land, according to a copy of an internal memo obtained by The Intercept.

The memo also instructs reporters not to use the word Palestine “except in very rare cases” and to steer clear of the term “refugee camps” to describe areas of Gaza historically settled by displaced Palestinians expelled from other parts of Palestine during previous Israeli–Arab wars. The areas are recognized by the United Nations as refugee camps and house hundreds of thousands of registered refugees.

The memo — written by Times standards editor Susan Wessling, international editor Philip Pan, and their deputies — “offers guidance about some terms and other issues we have grappled with since the start of the conflict in October.”

While the document is presented as an outline for maintaining objective journalistic principles in reporting on the Gaza war, several Times staffers told The Intercept that some of its contents show evidence of the paper’s deference to Israeli narratives.

“I think it’s the kind of thing that looks professional and logical if you have no knowledge of the historical context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,” said a Times newsroom source, who requested anonymity for fear of reprisal, of the Gaza memo. “But if you do know, it will be clear how apologetic it is to Israel.”

First distributed to Times journalists in November, the guidance — which collected and expanded on past style directives about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict — has been regularly updated over the ensuing months. It presents an internal window into the thinking of Times international editors as they have faced upheaval within the newsroom surrounding the paper’s Gaza war coverage.

“Issuing guidance like this to ensure accuracy, consistency and nuance in how we cover the news is standard practice,” said Charlie Stadtlander, a Times spokesperson. “Across all our reporting, including complex events like this, we take care to ensure our language choices are sensitive, current and clear to our audiences.”

Issues over style guidance have been among a bevy of internal rifts at the Times over its Gaza coverage. In January, The Intercept reported on disputes in the Times newsroom over issues with an investigative story on systematic sexual violence on October 7. The leak gave rise to a highly unusual internal probe. The company faced harsh criticism for allegedly targeting Times workers of Middle East and North African descent, which Times brass denied. On Monday, executive editor Joe Kahn told staff that the leak investigation had been concluded unsuccessfully.

WhatsApp Debates

Almost immediately after the October 7 attacks and the launch of Israel’s scorched-earth war against Gaza, tensions began to boil within the newsroom over the Times coverage. Some staffers said they believed the paper was going out of its way to defer to Israel’s narrative on the events and was not applying even standards in its coverage. Arguments began fomenting on internal Slack and other chat groups.

The debates between reporters on the Jerusalem bureau-led WhatsApp group, which at one point included 90 reporters and editors, became so intense that Pan, the international editor, interceded.

“We need to do a better job communicating with each other as we report the news, so our discussions are more productive and our disagreements less distracting,” Pan wrote in a November 28 WhatsApp message viewed by The Intercept and first reported by the Wall Street Journal. “At its best, this channel has been a quick, transparent and productive space to collaborate on a complex, fast-moving story. At its worst, it’s a tense forum where the questions and comments can feel accusatory and personal.”

Pan bluntly stated: “Do not use this channel for raising concerns about coverage.”

Among the topics of debate in the Jerusalem bureau WhatsApp group and exchanges on Slack, reviewed by The Intercept and verified with multiple newsroom sources, were Israeli attacks on Al-Shifa Hospital, statistics on Palestinian civilian deaths, the allegations of genocidal conduct by Israel, and President Joe Biden’s pattern of promoting unverified allegations from the Israeli government as fact. (Pan did not respond to a request for comment.)

Many of the same debates were addressed in the Times’s Gaza-specific style guidance and have been the subject of intense public scrutiny.

“It’s not unusual for news companies to set style guidelines,” said another Times newsroom source, who also asked for anonymity. “But there are unique standards applied to violence perpetrated by Israel. Readers have noticed and I understand their frustration.”

“Words Like ‘Slaughter’”

The Times memo outlines guidance on a range of phrases and terms. “The nature of the conflict has led to inflammatory language and incendiary accusations on all sides. We should be very cautious about using such language, even in quotations. Our goal is to provide clear, accurate information, and heated language can often obscure rather than clarify the fact,” the memo says.

“Words like ‘slaughter,’ ‘massacre’ and ‘carnage’ often convey more emotion than information. Think hard before using them in our own voice,” according to the memo. “Can we articulate why we are applying those words to one situation and not another? As always, we should focus on clarity and precision — describe what happened rather than using a label.”

Despite the memo’s framing as an effort to not employ incendiary language to describe killings “on all sides,” in the Times reporting on the Gaza war, such language has been used repeatedly to describe attacks against Israelis by Palestinians and almost never in the case of Israel’s large-scale killing of Palestinians.

In January, The Intercept published an analysis of New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times coverage of the war from October 7 through November 24 — a period mostly before the new Times guidance was issued. The Intercept analysis showed that the major newspapers reserved terms like “slaughter,” “massacre,” and “horrific” almost exclusively for Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians, rather than for Palestinian civilians killed in Israeli attacks.

The analysis found that, as of November 24, the New York Times had described Israeli deaths as a “massacre” on 53 occasions and those of Palestinians just once. The ratio for the use of “slaughter” was 22 to 1, even as the documented number of Palestinians killed climbed to around 15,000.

The latest Palestinian death toll estimate stands at more than 33,000, including at least 15,000 children — likely undercounts due to Gaza’s collapsed health infrastructure and missing persons, many of whom are believed to have died in the rubble left by Israel’s attacks over the past six months.

Touchy Debates

The Times memo touches on some of the most highly charged — and disputed — language around the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The guidance spells out, for instance, usage of the word “terrorist,” which The Intercept previously reported was at the center of a spirited newsroom debate.

“It is accurate to use ‘terrorism’ and ‘terrorist’ in describing the attacks of Oct. 7, which included the deliberate targeting of civilians in killings and kidnappings,” according to the leaked Times memo. “We should not shy away from that description of the events or the attackers, particularly when we provide context and explanation.”

The guidance also instructs journalists to “Avoid ‘fighters’ when referring to the Oct. 7 attack; the term suggests a conventional war rather than a deliberate attack on civilians. And be cautious in using ‘militants,’ which is interpreted in different ways and may be confusing to readers.”

In the memo, the editors tell Times journalists: “We do not need to assign a single label or to refer to the Oct. 7 assault as a ‘terrorist attack’ in every reference; the word is best used when specifically describing attacks on civilians. We should exercise restraint and can vary the language with other accurate terms and descriptions: an attack, an assault, an incursion, the deadliest attack on Israel in decades, etc. Similarly, in addition to ‘terrorists,’ we can vary the terms used to describe the Hamas members who carried out the assault: attackers, assailants, gunmen.”

The Times does not characterize Israel’s repeated attacks on Palestinian civilians as “terrorism,” even when civilians have been targeted. This is also true of Israel’s assaults on protected civilian sites, including hospitals.

In a section with the headline “‘Genocide’ and Other Incendiary Language,” the guidance says, “‘Genocide’ has a specific definition in international law. In our own voice, we should generally use it only in the context of those legal parameters. We should also set a high bar for allowing others to use it as an accusation, whether in quotations or not, unless they are making a substantive argument based on the legal definition.”

Regarding “ethnic cleansing,” the document calls it “another historically charged term,” instructing reporters: “If someone is making such an accusation, we should press for specifics or supply proper context.”

Bucking International Norms

In the cases of describing “occupied territory” and the status of refugees in Gaza, the Times style guidelines run counter to norms established by the United Nations and international humanitarian law.

On the term “Palestine” — a widely used name for both the territory and the U.N.-recognized state — the Times memo contains blunt instructions: “Do not use in datelines, routine text or headlines, except in very rare cases such as when the United Nations General Assembly elevated Palestine to a nonmember observer state, or references to historic Palestine.” The Times guidance resembles that of the Associated Press Stylebook.

The memo directs journalists not to use the phrase “refugee camps” to describe long-standing refugee settlements in Gaza. “While termed refugee camps, the refugee centers in Gaza are developed and densely populated neighborhoods dating to the 1948 war. Refer to them as neighborhoods, or areas, and if further context is necessary, explain how they have historically been called refugee camps.”

The United Nations recognizes eight refugee camps in the Gaza Strip. As of last year, before the war started, the areas were home to more than 600,000 registered refugees. Many are descendants of those who fled to Gaza after being forcibly expelled from their homes in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, which marked the founding of the Jewish state and mass dispossession of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.

The Israeli government has long been hostile to the historical fact that Palestinians maintain refugee status, because it signifies that they were displaced from lands they have a right to return to.

Since October 7, Israel has repeatedly bombed refugee camps in Gaza, including Jabaliya, Al Shati, Al Maghazi, and Nuseirat.

The memo’s instructions on the use of “occupied territories” says, “When possible, avoid the term and be specific (e.g. Gaza, the West Bank, etc.) as each has a slightly different status.” The United Nations, along with much of the world, considers Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem to be occupied Palestinian territories, seized by Israel in the 1967 Arab–Israeli war.

The admonition against the use of the term “occupied territories,” said a Times staffer, obscures the reality of the conflict, feeding into the U.S. and Israeli insistence that the conflict began on October 7.

“You are basically taking the occupation out of the coverage, which is the actual core of the conflict,” said the newsroom source. “It’s like, ‘Oh let’s not say occupation because it might make it look like we’re justifying a terrorist attack.’”

Biden’s Irresponsible War Doctrine Led to Iran’s Attack on Israel

by Ted Snider 

Posted on April 16, 2024

https://original.antiwar.com/Ted_Snider/2024/04/15/americas-dangerously-irresponsible-war-doctrine/

The Biden administration seems to be consistently adopting a policy of attempting to satisfy its foreign policy objectives by nurturing wars being fought by others while attempting to prevent harm to its own interests by containing those wars.

The doctrine of war management has three stages. The first is erecting and maintaining roadblocks to diplomatic attempts to end the war in the continuation of the pursuit of U.S. foreign policy objectives. The second is the provision on a massive scale of financial, military and intelligence aid to ensure the attainment of those foreign policy goals. The third is the attempt to manage and contain the war to prevent it from becoming a wider war into which the U.S. might get drawn.

This doctrine of war management seems to be being employed in both Gaza and Ukraine. It is a cynical and difficult to calibrate strategy that is fraught with danger for the U.S. and the world it claims to be responsibly leading.

In the war in Ukraine, the U.S. has actively prevented Ukraine from concluding a diplomatic solution that would have ended the war on terms that satisfied Ukrainian goals; in the war in Gaza, the U.S. has blocked the will of the international community and the Security Council by standing in the way of a permanent ceasefire. In both wars, the U.S. has been a rich source of weapons, financial aid and intelligence. But both wars, despite U.S. efforts to manage and contain them, have very nearly spilled over into much wider and more dangerous wars. That they have, so far, not is due less to skillful U.S. management than to the restraint of parties to the wars other than the United States.

But recklessly fueling wars with a real danger of widening and drawing America into them while crossing your fingers that others will maintain restraint is not a policy. It is the reckless, dangerous and irresponsible path of an administration without a maturely thought-out policy.

Though it can be debated whether Russia has shown restraint against Ukraine, it cannot be debated that it has shown restraint in avoiding a wider war that could draw in the U.S. or NATO. With Western provision of financial aid, weapons, training, intelligence and now even the admission that there are Western personnel on the ground making the use of Western supplied long-range missiles as well as targeting possible, Russia long ago concluded that NATO and the West was directly at war with Russia. Nonetheless, Russia has not targeted NATO nations as NATO weapons transit through them on the way to Ukraine. Nor have they acted in a manner that risks widening the war to NATO nations though NATO nations have been deeply involved and have acted in a manner that risks widening the war.

The events of April have shown just how real the risk of a widening war is in the Middle East. Feeling compelled to respond to the April 1 attack on an Iranian embassy compound in Damascus that killed seven Iranian officers, including General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, the top Iranian Quds Force commander in Lebanon and Syria, on April 13, Iran launched over 300 drones and missiles at Israel from Iranian soil.

That retaliation, that now risks an Israeli retaliation, that then risks a wider war into which the U.S. could get drawn, might have been avoided by more adroit U.S. management of the war. Prior to their aerial attack on Israel, Iran’s mission to the UN claimed that they would not have to address the attack on its embassy, which it sees as an attack on its soil, had the Security Council addressed it: “Had the UN Security Council condemned the Zionist regime’s reprehensible act of aggression on our diplomatic premises in Damascus and subsequently brought to justice its perpetrators, the imperative for Iran to punish this rogue regime might have been obviated.” But, unable to see its way to impartially applying the same international principles against attacking another country to both Israel and Iran, the United States, backed by the U.K. and France opposed a Security Council statement condemning Israel’s attack on the Iranian embassy.

Feeling compelled to now make that statement itself, Iran launched an assault on Israel. But the unprecedented attack from Iranian soil, large though it was, may have been carefully calculated to accomplish its objectives with restraint.

Iran long telegraphed its retaliation. It attempted to overwhelm Israel’s iron dome air defense system largely with slow moving drones that are easy to shoot down after announcing they were on their way shortly after they were launched instead of when they were closer to Israel. They seem to have selected only military targets. No one seems to have been killed. A young girl who was, unfortunately, injured was hit by falling shrapnel from an intercepted missile. Immediately following the Iranian launch, its mission to the UN declared that “The matter can be deemed concluded.”

That Iran responded to an attack on its sovereign soil by launching a retaliatory attack from its own soil and not via a proxy in Lebanon, Iraq or Syria for the first time can be seen as escalatory in the history of the Israel-Iran confrontation. But in the context of the immediate conflict, it is conceivable to see it as an attempt to deliver the message it felt it need to without escalating. Iran replied to an attack on an embassy that was fatal, including for a top general, with an attack on a military compound that killed no one.

Though the aerial assault with over 300 drones and missiles is massive in number, it may be less massive in ambition. It may have been calculated as the number of projectiles needed to get a small number through to do limited damage to a military base that it says was directly involved in the attack on its embassy.

Not only Iran, but Israel so far seems to be showing restraint. After the strike on the sovereign territory of an Iranian embassy, which can be seen as escalatory, the U.S. message that it will not support a retaliatory Israeli strike on Iran seems to have persuaded Israel, at least for now, to moderate its response.

Axios’ Barak Ravid reports that U.S. President Joe Biden told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on a phone call that the U.S. “won’t support any counterattack against Iran.” CNN reports that the U.S. has also specified that they will not “participate in any offensive action against Iran.” Framing Israel’s defense against the drones and missiles as a demonstration of its “remarkable capacity to defend against and defeat even unprecedented attacks,” Biden advised Netanyahu, “You got a win. Take the win.” Several members of Israel’s war cabinet argued for launching an immediate retaliatory attack on Iran, but Netanyahu reportedly called it off after speaking with Biden and seeing the lack of serious damage caused by the attack.

The Israeli war cabinet has not yet decided how to respond to the Iranian attack.  On April 15, military chief Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi said that the attack “will be met with a response,” but with the U.S., the G7, the EU, and the UN all reportedly pressing Israel to show restraint, Israel has reportedly told the U.S. that they are not “looking for a significant escalation with Iran,” and there are reports that Israel may not “target Iranian territory” in favor of strikes on Iranian targets in the region.

The U.S. doctrine of war management amounts to the reckless support of war and crossing your fingers that it doesn’t get out of hand. It is a difficult and dangerous doctrine. On April 13, the world saw how terrifyingly close it could come to failing. So far, crossing your fingers has worked. But it is a dangerous and irresponsible plan to count on.

Ted Snider is a regular columnist on U.S. foreign policy and history at Antiwar.com and The Libertarian Institute. He is also a frequent contributor to Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative as well as other outlets. To support his work or for media or virtual presentation requests, contact him at tedsnider@bell.net.

MEXICO ALIGNED WITH ISRAEL

President López Obrador has tried to become the main reference of the “progressive” governments in Latin America, as he constantly advocates for Cuba and Venezuela before President Biden; he criticizes the right-wing governments or as he calls them “conservatives” and has maintained continuous disputes with several of them in the region (Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia – when the coup against Evo Morales took place-Panama and Argentina); all for trying to help his allies and friends (Rafael Correa and Jorge Glas in Ecuador; Pedro Castillo in Perú; Evo Morales and Luis Arce in Bolivia) or for interfering in the internal affairs of these countries (criticism of the Foreign Affairs Minister of Panama or to the President of Argentina).

However, there is one issue on which López Obrador has not entirely agreed with his “progressive” counterparts in the region, and that is the relationship with Israel.

Iran has just sent drones and fired missiles at Israel, in retaliation for the destruction of its consulate in Damascus, Syria, by the Israeli armed forces, with the aim of assassinating members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, in flagrant violation of international law.

The Mexican government strongly condemned the Iranian attack on Israel, and lukewarmly referred to the fact that originated the attack, that is, the Israeli bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus, which has prompted numerous criticisms on social networks of the government of Lopez Obrador, for measuring with two sticks the violation of international law committed by Israel; while demanding that the international community strongly condemn the attack by the Ecuadorian police on the Mexican embassy in Quito.

On October 7, 2023, Israel suffered a violent incursion by the Hamas group (which the United States and the European Union consider to be a terrorist organization), which resulted in the deaths of 1,200 Israeli civilians, police, and soldiers; and the taking of about 250 hostages from Israel and many other countries.

Mexico condemned the Hamas attack but stated that it expected a peaceful resolution of the conflict, prompting a strong response from Israel's ambassador to Mexico, who expected unconditional support.

Subsequently, the government of Benjamin Netanyahu launched a brutal offensive against Hamas and the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip that, as of April 13, 2024, had killed 33,686 Palestinians (two thirds of them children and women) and wounded 76,214.

The Israeli offensive has destroyed homes, schools, hospitals, mosques, public buildings, and civilian infrastructure.

According to the Netanyahu government, its goal is to destroy the Hamas organization, but what has caused has been a humanitarian crisis that has brought 1.5 million people to the brink of starvation, who have taken refuge in the southern part of the Gaza Strip, in the small town of Rafah, which will also be attacked in the coming days by the Israel Defense Forces.

The death and destruction inflicted by Israel had led many countries in the international community to demand an immediate ceasefire, the release of the hostages by Hamas and the commencement of negotiations for the establishment of a Palestinian State.

The South African government filed a complaint against Israel for possible violation of the Genocide Convention before the International Court of Justice (UN agency).

The Court ruled that Palestinians have the right to be protected from acts of genocide and that Israel must refrain from actions that may violate the Genocide Convention; and allow international assistance to the affected population.

Israel has not complied with the Court's orders, nor with a UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire.

In this sense, several countries with “progressive” governments in Latin America have expressed their disagreement with Israel’s actions and have even gone further.

Colombia has just joined South Africa's complaint against Israel at the International Court of Justice and has pointed out that if Israel does not comply with the UN Security Council resolution on the ceasefire, it will break diplomatic relations with the Israeli government.

Colombia, Chile, and Honduras have already called their ambassadors to Israel for “consultations.”

Bolivia broke off diplomatic relations with Israel; Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua have supported the Palestinian cause for many years and condemn the Israeli offensive, as well as the occupation of the Palestinian territories by Israel; and in the case of President Lula of Brazil, he compared the death and destruction carried out by Israel in Gaza to the Holocaust that the Jews suffered at the hands of the Nazis in World War II.

The government of López Obrador, for its part, submitted a request to the International Criminal Court (this court investigates individuals who commit war crimes, while the UN International Court of Justice resolves disputes between states) to investigate the possible commission of war crimes by individuals of Israeli and/or Palestinian nationality in the current conflict in Gaza.

However, the Mexican government has not condemned the recent actions of the Israeli army, which murdered seven members of a non-governmental organization (World Central Kitchen) responsible for distributing food to the Palestinian population in Gaza; nor has it withdrawn its ambassador from Tel Aviv; nor has it expressed its unequivocal rejection of the Israeli army's actions against the civilian population in Gaza.

And this has an explanation. For three years now, the Mexican government has requested the extradition of the writer and former Mexican-Jewish diplomat Andrés Roemer to the State of Israel, where he went to take refuge in 2021, after the Mexico City Prosecutor's Office issued two arrest warrants against him for up to 60 cases of sexual abuse, which were presented by numerous victims, and which were verified between 2002 and 2020.

Mexico and Israel do not have an extradition treaty, so such requests depend on the goodwill of the Israeli government.

It was until October 2, 2023, that the Israeli authorities arrested Roemer.
But the attack of October 7 got through, and the whole process came to a halt. Until Roemer managed to have him placed under house arrest in January 2024.

Since then, Mexico's position on Israel's actions in Gaza has been completely silent, without condemning for example, the killing of more than 200 humanitarian workers.

Mexico's lukewarm position seems to have been reciprocated by Israel, since a few days ago an Israeli court approved Roemer's extradition to Mexico, although Roemer can still appeal that decision.

On the other hand, the former Director of the Criminal Investigation Agency of the Attorney General's Office, Tomás Zerón de Lucio, accused of torture against people who participated in the disappearance of the 43 students from the Ayotzinapa Normal School, fled first to Canada, and then in 2022 took refuge in Israel, which has not responded in this case to the Mexican government's requests for his extradition.

Zerón was one of the Mexican officials who during the government of Enrique Peña Nieto (2012-2018) bought Pegasus software from the Israeli company NSO Group to spy on political opponents, journalists, businessmen, academics and even government officials.

This software continues to be used by the Secretary of National Defense and the National Intelligence Center of the Lopez Obrador government (although the president continues to deny it).

The Mexican government does not want to anger the Israeli government any more by accusing it of the excesses it is committing in Gaza, in order not to hinder the negotiations for the extradition of Roemer and eventually Zerón.

On the other hand, members of the Mexican Jewish community have had and still have an enormous influence on López Obrador, and they have certainly convinced him not to deepen Mexico's criticism of Israel over the situation in Gaza.

For example, José María Riobóo, a well-known entrepreneur in the construction sector, was the main person in charge of the construction of what at the time were known as the “second floors” of several main roads in Mexico City, when López Obrador was head of government (2000-2005). Since then he has been very close to López Obrador, so much so that Riobóo's wife, Yasmín Esquivel, was promoted by López Obrador to become Minister of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation.
In 2022, López Obrador even pushed her to become president of the Supreme Court, but the attempt was frustrated when it became known that Minister Esquivel had plagiarized most of her thesis to obtain a law degree at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, which almost cost her to resign from the Court, although she eventually remained in her post.

Another person close to the president who is part of the Jewish community is Julio Scherer (son of a famous journalist known for his “progressive” positions), who was his legal advisor during the first three years of López Obrador’s government, from where he carried out numerous illegal businesses under the protection of power, mainly extorting big businessmen, to whom he assured them that he would settle disputes over taxes or the application of various laws and regulations, in exchange for multimillion-dollar payments.

Finally, such was the scandal of these practices of the Legal Counsel, that López Obrador chose to ask him to resign in 2021. However, no investigation was opened into this individual's multiple violations of the law.

Now Scherer is an advisor to the presidential candidate of the ruling party, Claudia Sheinbaum, so it is feasible that if the presidential party (Morena) wins the elections again, Scherer will return to doing illegal business, protected by the new president.

And Claudia Sheinbaum herself is the daughter of two Jewish teachers who came from Bulgaria to Mexico after the Second World War.

Sheinbaum has not made any pronouncements about the conflict in Gaza, much less has criticized the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, so everything suggests that if she succeeds in the presidential elections of next June 2 (she has a 20 point advantage over her main competitor Xóchitl Galvez), she will maintain the line of cooperation and zero criticism towards Israel (maybe she will not reach as much as the current president of Argentina, Javier Milei, who has simply presented himself as a vassal of Netanyahu), which lead her away of positions of Latin American “progressive” governments on this issue and of the mexican foreign policy.

Iran warns Israel, US of ‘severe response’ in case of retaliation

Iranian military chief says overnight attack ‘achieved all its goals’, adding that US bases are under threat if it backs Israeli retaliation.

14 Apr 2024

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/14/iran-warns-israel-us-of-severe-response-in-case-of-retaliation

Iran has warned Israel of a larger attack on its territory should it retaliate against Tehran’s overnight drone and missile attacks, adding that the United States should not back an Israeli military action.

“If the Zionist regime [Israel] or its supporters demonstrate reckless behaviour, they will receive a decisive and much stronger response,” Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi said in a statement on Sunday.

Raisi’s statement follows a similar warning by Iranian military chief, Major-General Mohammad Bagheri, who told state TV that a “much larger” response awaits Israel “if it retaliates against Iran”.

Bagheri said the Iranian attack on Israel “has achieved all its goals, and in our view the operation has ended, and we do not intend to continue”.

Earlier on Sunday, he warned the US that any backing of Israeli retaliation would result in its bases being targeted by Iran.

However, in a signal that Iran’s response was calculated in an attempt to avoid any major escalation, the Iranian foreign minister Amir Abdollahian said that Tehran had informed the US of the planned attack 72 hours in advance, and said that the strikes would be “limited” and for self-defence.

That did not stop more aggressive language from other officials, with the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Hossein Salami, warning that Tehran would retaliate against any Israeli attacks on its interests, officials or citizens.

“From now on, whenever Israel attacks Iranian interests… we will attack from Iran.”

Meanwhile, Iran’s permanent mission to the United Nations justified Tehran’s response to Israeli “aggression” as a “legitimate defence” in accordance with the UN charter.

“The matter can be deemed concluded. However, should the Israeli regime make another mistake, Iran’s response will be considerably more severe,” said a statement.

It added that the US should “stay away” from the conflict, as it is an issue between Iran and Israel.

Al Jazeera’s Dorsa Jabbari, reporting from Tehran, said the Iranian attacks would be seen by its nationals as a “historic event in the country”.

“For over 40 years, Iran has been talking about going to war with Israel as one of its main adversaries,” she said, adding that celebrations were held in several Iranian cities over the air raids.

‘Significant response’

Tehran’s attacks late on Saturday were launched after a suspected Israeli air strike on its embassy compound in Damascus on April 1 killed IRGC members, raising the threat of a wider regional conflict.

On Sunday, Israel reported modest damage and reopened its airspace following the unprecedented direct attack.

The Israeli military said the armed forces had shot down more than 99 percent of the Iranian drones and missiles and were discussing follow-up options.

In a brief statement on X, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wrote, “We intercepted. We blocked. Together we will win.”

Meanwhile, Israel’s defence chief, Yoav Gallant, warned in a televised statement that the confrontation with Iran “is not over yet”.

Israel’s Channel 12 TV quoted an unnamed Israeli official as saying there would be a “significant response” to the attack.

Israel’s chief military spokesman, Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, also called Iran’s actions “very grave”, saying in a televised briefing that they “push the region toward escalation”.

Despite the rhetoric, one Iranian analyst said the statements coming from Iran offer an opening for the opposing parties to back off from a wider confrontation.

Farzan Sabet, a senior researcher at the Geneva-based Global Governance Centre, said Israel “has a potential off-ramp” by making a “largely symbolic and non- or only slightly lethal response”.

But given Israel’s “historically low threat tolerance and practice of disproportionate response”, further retaliations and escalations could be seen, he said in an analysis posted on X.

An ultra-Orthodox ultimatum, and the future of the ‘Jewish’ state

The widening schism between Israel’s secular and ultra-Orthodox communities impacts not only the state’s military and economic wellbeing but poses an existential threat to the stability of the entire Zionist project.

Robert Inlakesh

APR 12, 2024

https://thecradle.co/articles/an-ultra-orthodox-ultimatum-and-the-future-of-the-jewish-state

Israel’s ultra-Orthodox Jewish community, known as the Haredim, is the fastest-growing segment of the country’s population. This demographic shift is occurring amid escalating tensions between secular right-wing and religious-nationalist factions in Israel, raising concerns about the stability of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s extremist coalition – particularly over contentious issues like Haredi military conscription.

Projected to constitute approximately 16 percent of the occupation state’s population by 2030, the Haredim’s burgeoning numbers have triggered a broader societal debate about Israel’s future direction. This includes the challenge of reconciling today’s Jewish ethno-religious identity politics with the original Israeli aspirations for a modern “liberal-democratic” state framework.

In 2018, the Israeli Knesset passed the controversial ’Nation-State’ law, which officially declared that only its Jewish citizens have the right to self-determination. This law was later cited by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International in their reports designating Israel as an apartheid regime. 

In order to maintain the idea of a state built on Jewish supremacy, it has to be taken into consideration that Haredi Jews have a birth rate of 6.4, compared to the Jewish Israeli average of 2.5. This makes the ultra-Orthodox community an invaluable asset for Israelis seeking to maintain a demographic balance in which Jewish Israelis remain a clear majority – outside of the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Economic and military challenges

In other respects, however, Israel’s ultra-Orthodox community presents a number of liabilities for the state, including a significant drain on Israeli resources. 

For example, the Haredim population growth has created housing crises for their communities. According to research published by Israel’s Kohelet Policy Forum, an unemployed Haredi father receives an average of four times the amount of government subsidies than a non-Haredi father.

The community’s unemployment rate is double the national average, with only 14 percent of Haredi students receiving a high-school certificate, compared to 83 percent in state and state-religious schools.

But today, arguably the most contentious aspect of the relationship between ultra-Orthodox Jews and the Israeli state is the former’s longstanding exemption from mandatory military service. 

In the early years of the occupation state's history, only a few hundred Yeshiva (Jewish religious school) students were granted this exemption. 

However, in 1977, Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin extended the exemption to include the entire Haredi community, a move that has persistently divided public opinion, particularly as all other Jewish Israeli citizens are required to serve in the military.

The Haredim’s lack of contribution to the national economy and military, coupled with their extraordinary financial entitlements from the state’s coffers, has made them the “most hated people in Israel.” 

Political influence and legal reforms 

Despite the public’s animosity, the ultra-Orthodox are extremely important to Israel’s illegal settlement program and now occupy powerful, ‘kingmaker’ positions in both national and local government. According to the Israel Policy Forum, roughly one-third of all West Bank settlers are Haredi, with a similar number distributed throughout occupied east Jerusalem.

To illustrate the growing political clout of this community, the Haredi political faction, Shas, secured 11 seats in Israel’s Knesset in the 2022 national elections, becoming the third largest component of the government’s ruling coalition. Public unease was further exacerbated by the ultra-Orthodox parties’ success in Jerusalem’s City Council elections.

It was no surprise, then, that upon Netanyahu’s election victory, he launched a campaign of controversial legal reforms that critics charged would transform Israel’s secular model of governance into a theocratic one.

The Haredim’s mark on Israeli society can no longer be overlooked. The country’s fastest-growing population is now seeded throughout local and national governments, and thanks to Netanyahu’s uber-fragile coalition structure, it is today able to impact Israel’s every social, political, and military decision.

Conscription or exodus 

But these matters are now coming to a head. In late March, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered that ultra-Orthodox Jews be provided government subsidies for religious studies and conscripted into the army. 

The ruling came down after Netanyahu delayed a Knesset vote on a bill to renew the extension exempting ultra-Orthodox Jews from military conscription. Earlier, in March, Israel’s Chief Sephardic Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef had threatened that the Haredim would leave Israel altogether if forced into military service.

The Supreme Court order caused an uproar in the community, with Haredi members vowing to disregard the law and will “never serve in the army.” 

Israeli military service has long been discouraged within the Haredim, to the point where its members have and can be de facto excommunicated and shunned by even their own families. In fact, Haredi Jews who have decided to break social norms and join the army have a specific combat battalion set up for them in the West Bank called Netzah Yehuda.  

The Supreme Court decision, delivered less than 24 hours before the 1 April conscription exemption renewal deadline, effectively ended funding for 50,000 full-time Talmud students, prompting 18 senior Shas Rabbis to sign a letter condemning the move. The letter reads, “We will not be deterred from going to prison,” and claims that forced conscription is a conspiracy to reduce observance of ultra-Orthodox Judaism.

Israel’s massive economic toll from its ongoing war on Gaza, the Yemeni-imposed blockade on all Israel-linked shipping in several key regional waterways, and Lebanese Hezbollah’s daily military operations in the north have significantly strained Tel Aviv’s financial resources. In recent years, the cost of maintaining subsidies to ultra-Orthodox Yeshiva students alone has skyrocketed to 136 million dollars per annum, providing a strong argument for the Israeli opposition to end the funding.

The fate of Netanyahu’s government 

The ongoing debate over Haredi conscription has reached a critical stage, posing potential risks to Netanyahu’s leadership and the stability of his rocky coalition. The wartime emergency government set in place since 7 October, includes opposition leaders like Benny Gantz of the National Unity Party, who challenge the prime minister every step of the way. 

Gantz has delivered his own ultimatum: to exit the government if exemptions for the Haredim are passed. His threats come on the back of Netanyahu’s vacillating stances on whether he will enact or oppose the exemptions – illustrating just how carefully the prime minister is forced to tread domestic political lines in the midst of a regional war, and exemptions, and just how fragile his unity government remains.  

Netanyahu faces a stark choice: secure the support of his Haredi coalition partners by maintaining their military exemption, or yield to everyone else in the country and compel Haredi conscription. 

The dilemma is further complicated by the potential implications for Israel’s settlement expansion and demographic strategy, ultimately impacting the survival of the “Jewish state.”

The schism threatening the state

This issue has also spilled into the growing schism between secular and religious Israeli factions. If the Haredim do not join the army – especially critical during wartime when those numbers are needed – it means that at least 40 percent of Israeli passport holders, including both ultra-Orthodox and 1948 Palestinians (who traditionally do not serve in the military), will be exempt from military service.

The Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics’ 2021 survey reveals that 45 percent of Israel’s Jewish population identifies as secular or non-religious. This is a country very neatly divided in terms of religious Judaic observance. 

This division is further evidenced by the public’s response to Netanyahu’s proposed legal reforms, with opposition fluctuating between 43 and 66 percent throughout 2023, depending on the polling data. 

The Haredim’s political ascent today challenges the traditional Zionist vision of a secular Jewish ethno-state by introducing the complexity of accommodating a significant portion of the population that adheres to religious fundamentalism. 

The Haredim’s aversion to integration in a modern capitalist economy – and their role within the framework of a state that aspires to be both Jewish and democratic – is profound. This raises essential questions about the practicality of Zionism as it confronts the realities of a diverse and evolving Israeli society.

Moreover, the juxtaposition of an increasingly religious Israeli government – against the backdrop of a population that includes nearly an equal number of Palestinians – highlights the inherent contradictions within the concept of a “Jewish democracy.”

As secular ultra-nationalists begin to challenge the religious right fronted by Netanyahu, this internal conflict will continue to shake Israel’s foundations. While the occupation state staggers under the pressures of a multi-front, regional war, the likes of which it has never encountered in its short history, it is the Haredim issue today that – internally – poses the biggest existential threat to the entirety of the Zionist project.