Uncategorized
Biden administration rebukes Israel for repealing a settlement evacuation
WASHINGTON (JTA) — A law passed by Israel’s government yesterday has sparked a strong rebuke from the Biden administration, words of caution from some of Israel’s strongest supporters in the Senate — and damage control from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The new law repeals a portion of Israel’s 2005 disengagement, in which it withdrew settlers and troops from the entirety of the Gaza Strip and from four settlements in the northern West Bank. While much of Israel and the world focused on the evacuation from Gaza, opponents of the decision have committed themselves primarily to securing a return to the West Bank settlements. The vote on Tuesday allowed settlers to do just that — making it once again legal for Israelis to enter the sites where the West Bank settlements once stood.
That led to one of the Biden administration’s most lacerating criticisms of Israel’s new right-wing government. On Tuesday, State Department spokesman Vedant Patel said the law was “particularly provocative and counterproductive” and would not be “consistent” with Israel’s commitment to the United States.
“The U.S. strongly urges Israel to refrain from allowing the return of settlers to the area covered by the legislation, consistent with both former Prime Minister [Ariel] Sharon and the current Israeli government’s commitment to the United States,” Patel said.
In another sign of the Biden administration’s attitude toward the law, Israeli ambassador Michael Herzog was summoned to discuss it with the deputy secretary of state, Wendy Sherman — a rare move that indicates displeasure.
Netanyahu responded to that condemnation on Wednesday by asserting that the law was purely symbolic. The vote “brings to an end discriminatory and humiliating legislation that prevented Jews from living in areas of the northern West Bank,” a statement from Netanyahu’s office said, according to the Times of Israel. “However, the government has no intention of building new communities in these areas.”
The United States warning Israel that it is running the risk of its “commitment” to its closest ally is unusually strong language, and suggests that the Biden administration would see the rebuilding of the settlements as a major rift.
The drama follows a recent commitment by Israel to hold off on settlement expansion. Earlier this week, Israel and the Palestinian Authority agreed to cooperate on stemming a recent escalation of violence in the West Bank. As part of that agreement, Israel pledged to suspend settlement planning for six months. The summit where the agreement was reached was also attended by U.S., Jordanian and Egyptian officials.
The law allowing settlers to return to the area in the northern West Bank is one of a battery of far-reaching changes Netanyahu’s new government is hoping to push through. Most prominent among those plans is legislation to sap the courts of their independence, which has sparked massive, frequent protests in Israel’s streets and criticism from President Joe Biden and a range of other public figures.
Netanyahu is leading a coalition with far-right partners in senior roles, and his largest coalition partner, the Religious Zionist Party, strongly supports massive settlement expansion. On Tuesday, Orit Strock, a member of the party who serves as a minister in Netanyahu’s government, said she believes Israelis will one day resettle Gaza as well.
“How many years it will take, I don’t know,” she said in a television interview. “Very unfortunately, the return to the Gaza Strip will also involve many victims, just as leaving the Gaza Strip involved many victims. But there’s no doubt that at the end of the day, the Gaza Strip is part of the Land of Israel, and the day will come when we will return to it.”
Israeli-Palestinian relations — already tense since a sequence of Palestinian terrorist attacks over the past year and Israeli army raids on Palestinian population centers — have intensified since Netanyahu’s government was sworn in in December. This week’s summit was a bid to stem the violence ahead of a holiday season that includes the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, the Jewish holiday of Passover and the Christian holiday of Easter, when tensions in Israel and the West Bank have led to violence in previous years.
On Tuesday, some of Israel’s best friends among Democrats in Congress sent the Netanyahu government a message, urging it to abide by this week’s agreement with the Palestinian Authority.
“As we enter the holy month of Ramadan and prepare to celebrate both Passover and Easter, such de-escalation is crucial,” said the statement signed by Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, among them Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Ben Cardin of Maryland, two of Israel’s fiercest Democratic defenders. “Israelis and Palestinians deserve to live with security and in safety, enjoying equal measures of freedom, prosperity, and dignity. We remain committed to supporting a negotiated two-state solution.”
—
The post Biden administration rebukes Israel for repealing a settlement evacuation appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Gaza ‘Board of Peace’ to Convene at WH on Feb. 19, One Day After Trump’s Meeting with Netanyahu
US President Donald Trump speaks to the media during the 56th annual World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos, Switzerland, January 22, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Denis Balibouse/File Photo
i24 News – A senior official from one of the member states confirms to i24NEWS that an invitation has been received for a gathering of President Trump’s Board of Peace at the White House on February 19, just one day after the president’s planned meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The meeting comes amid efforts to advance the implementation of the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire, following the limited reopening of the Rafah crossing, the expected announcement on the composition and mandate of the International Stabilization Force, and anticipation of a Trump declaration setting a deadline for Hamas to disarm.
In Israel officials assess that the announcement is expected very soon but has been delayed in part due to ongoing talks with the Americans over Israel’s demands for the demilitarization of the Gaza Strip. Trump reiterated on Thursday his promise that Hamas will indeed be disarmed.
Uncategorized
If US Attacks, Iran Says It Will Strike US Bases in the Region
FILE PHOTO: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi meets with Omani Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Albusaidi in Muscat, Oman, February 6, 2026. Photo: Omani Ministry of Foreign Affairs/ Handout via REUTERS/File Photo
Iran will strike US bases in the Middle East if it is attacked by US forces that have massed in the region, its foreign minister said on Saturday, insisting that this should not be seen as an attack on the countries hosting them.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi spoke to Qatari Al Jazeera TV a day after Tehran and Washington pledged to continue indirect nuclear talks following what both sides described as positive discussions on Friday in Oman.
While Araqchi said no date had yet been set for the next round of negotiations, US President Donald Trump said they could take place early next week. “We and Washington believe it should be held soon,” Araqchi said.
Trump has threatened to strike Iran after a US naval buildup in the region, demanding that it renounce uranium enrichment, a possible pathway to nuclear bombs, as well as stopping ballistic missile development and support for armed groups around the region. Tehran has long denied any intent to weaponize nuclear fuel production.
While both sides have indicated readiness to revive diplomacy over Tehran’s long-running nuclear dispute with the West, Araqchi balked at widening the talks out.
“Any dialogue requires refraining from threats and pressure. (Tehran) only discusses its nuclear issue … We do not discuss any other issue with the US,” he said.
Last June, the US bombed Iranian nuclear facilities, joining in the final stages of a 12-day Israeli bombing campaign. Tehran has since said it has halted uranium enrichment activity.
Its response at the time included a missile attack on a US base in Qatar, which maintains good relations with both Tehran and Washington.
In the event of a new US attack, Araqchi said the consequences could be similar.
“It would not be possible to attack American soil, but we will target their bases in the region,” he said.
“We will not attack neighboring countries; rather, we will target US bases stationed in them. There is a big difference between the two.”
Iran says it wants recognition of its right to enrich uranium, and that putting its missile program on the negotiating table would leave it vulnerable to Israeli attacks.
Uncategorized
My university wants me to sign a loyalty oath — am I in America or Vichy France?
As a historian of modern France, I have rarely seen a connection between my everyday life in my adopted state of Texas and my work on my adopted specialization: the period we call Vichy France. Apart from the Texan boast that the Lone Star Republic is bigger than the French Republic, and the small town of Paris, Texas, which boasts its own Eiffel Tower, I had no reason to compare the two places where I have spent more than half of my life.
Until now.
Last week, professors and instructors at the University of Houston received an unsettling memo from the administration, which asked us to sign a statement that we teach rather than “indoctrinate” our students.
Though the administration did not define “indoctrinate,” it hardly takes a PhD in English to read between the lines. Indoctrination is precisely what our state government has already forbidden us from doing in our classes. There must not be the slightest sign in our courses and curricula of references to diversity, identity and inclusion. The catch-all word used is “ideology,” a term Governor Greg Abbott recently invoked when he warned that “Texas is targeting professors who are more focused on pushing leftist ideologies rather than preparing students to lead our nation. We must end indoctrination.”
This is not the first time in the past several months that I have been reminded of what occurred in France during the four years that it was ruled by its German occupiers and Vichy collaborators.
Very briefly, with Germany’s rapid and complete defeat of France in 1940, an authoritarian, antisemitic and collaborationist regime assumed power. Among its first acts was to purge French Jews from all the professions, including high school and university faculties, and to impose an “oath of loyalty” to the person of Marshal Philippe Pétain, the elderly but ramrod straight and clear-headed hero of World War I.
The purpose of the oath was simple and straightforward: By demanding the fealty of all state employees to the person of Pétain, it also demanded their hostility to the secular and democratic values of the French republican tradition. Nevertheless, an overwhelming majority of teachers signed the oath —even the novelist and feminist Simone de Beauvoir, who needed her salary as a lycée teacher, as did the writer Jean Guéhenno, a visceral anti-Pétainist who continued to teach at the prestigious Paris lycée Henri IV until he was fired in 1943.
Vichy’s ministers of education understood the vital importance that schools and universities played in shaping citizens. Determined to replace the revolutionary values of liberty, equality and fraternity with the reactionary goals of family, work and homeland, they sought to eliminate “godless schools” and instill a “moral order” based on submission to state and church authorities. This radical experiment, powered by a reactionary ideology, to return France to the golden age of kings, cardinals and social castes came to an inglorious end with the Allied liberation of the country and collapse of Vichy scarcely four years after it had begun.
The French Jewish historian Marc Bloch — who joined the Resistance and sacrificed his life on behalf of a very different ideology we can call humanism — always insisted on the importance of comparative history. But comparison was important not because it identified similarities but because it illuminated differences. Clearly, the situation of professors at UH is very different from that of their French peers in Vichy France. We are not risking our jobs, much less our lives, by resisting this ham-handed effort to demand our loyalty to an anti-indoctrination memo.
But the two situations are not entirely dissimilar, either. Historians of fascism like Robert Paxton remind us that such movements begin slowly, then suddenly assume terrifying proportions. This was certainly the case in interwar France, where highly polarized politics, frequent political violence and a long history of antisemitism and anti-republicanism prepared the ground for Vichy. In France, Paxton writes, this slow, then sudden transformation “changed the practice of citizenship from the enjoyment of constitutional rights and duties to participation in mass ceremonies of affirmation and conformity.”
As an historian of France, I always thought its lurch into authoritarianism was shocking, but not surprising. After all, many of the elements for this change had existed well before 1940. But as a citizen of America, I am not just shocked, but also surprised by official demands for affirmation and conformity. One day I will find the time to think hard about my naiveté. But the time is now to think about how we should respond to these demands.
The post My university wants me to sign a loyalty oath — am I in America or Vichy France? appeared first on The Forward.