Israel’s Increasingly Extremist Turn to Misogyny is Pinkwashed, while the Press Stereotypes Muslims Belfast (Special to Informed Comment) – Pinkwashing of discrimination against women in Israeli politics and society has led western politicians and media to ignore the issue. Israeli news sites, in contrast, are frank about this worsening problem, which is spearheaded by the far right. In this article I will look at misogyny within the political […] |
In this article I will look at misogyny within the political parties making up the Israeli government. It is worth noting that the slack cut to anti-women Israeli fundamentalists is not extended to Arabs and Muslims. Large sections of western media are no different from the political establishment when they deal with the Middle East. Reactions and coverage of recent events in Syria and occupied Palestine have been no different especially when it comes to misogyny. For example, Syria’s newly appointed leader Ahmad Sharaa caused a controversy when he avoided shaking hands with Germany’s foreign minister Annalena Baerbock, in line with his socially conservative views. Yet when Joe Biden was US president, he didn’t feel offended when Israeli female singer Yuval Dayan refused to shake his hand. He admired her adherence to her religious teachings which prohibits any physical contact with the opposite gender. Yet it became a big deal when a conservative Muslim did exactly the same thing. Not only are conservative Arab and Muslim men labeled as misogynists but also liberal ones — as if any Arab and Muslim man is guilty of sexism until proven innocent. For example, Palestinian liberal politician Dr Mustafa Barghouti was shouted over by British TV host Julia Hartley-Brewer while she was interviewing him, after which she unfairly accused him of being uncomfortable listening to women speaking. Since I grew up in the Middle East, I must point out that there are liberal men and women who might give you a hug and there are conservatives who would avoid a handshake and others who fall between the two. When some women avoid shaking hands with me, I respect that, since none have the right to impose their own views on others. Now that I live in Europe, I can see daily the ways in which such stereotypes have a negative impact on Arab and Muslims communities. Let us turn to Israel, where ultra-Orthodox males have sometimes forced women to ride at the back of the bus. Nor is the problem one of a few religious fanatics. Representatives of this point of view are key cabinet members. Fundamentalist historical allies of the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu include far right religious extremists represented by Religious Zionism, Jewish Power and Noam as well as Ultra Orthodox Haredi and Hasidic religious parties including Shas, Agudat Yisrael and Degel HaTorah. A Jewish religious women’s group called Women of the Wall urged Netanyahu not to appoint the leader of the extremist Jewish Power party, Itamar Ben-Gvir, as National Security Minister. The Women of the Wall group holds a monthly womens’ prayer at the Western Wall, in violation of the site rules set by the rabbis, which bar women from carrying and reading from the Torah. The women complained of Ben-Gvir’s harassment of and incitement against them, and his participation in violent protests that endangered women’s lives. Netanyahu ignored them and elevated Ben-Gvir to National Security Minister. (Ben-Gvir, who had on several occasions blocked cease-fire agreements in Gaza, recently resigned over the halt in hostilities). Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, the leader of the Religious Zionism, put misogyny and racism together when he said that Jewish and Arab women should have segregated maternity wards, apartheid style. On gay rights, Smotrich described himself as ‘ proud homophobe’. He was also involved in organizing the anti-gay “beast parade” in Jerusalem, driving sheep and goats through the streets and comparing homosexuality to bestiality. The tiny anti-LGBT far right Noam party was brought to the corridors of power by Netanyahu when he appointed its leader Avi Maoz as Deputy Minister, as well as giving him the the ‘Jewish identity’ portfolio. Not only does Noam support gay conversion therapy and consider LGBTQ people as abominations but the party also objects to women serving in the military. Its leader Maoz said that a woman’s greatest contribution is to marriage and raising a family.
Haredi and Hasidic fundamentalists are not any better. For example, despite being ordered by the Israeli High Court of Justice to change its regulations that prohibit women from standing as candidates for elections, a source from the predominantly Hasidic Agudath Yisrael faction United Torah Judaism said that they will comply with the court decision by changing the wording but without changing the policy of excluding women, which is based on a decision made by leading rabbis from the time Israel was founded. Additionally, the Council of the Torah Sages, which determines the party decisions and makeup, wouldn’t allow female candidates for office. It goes on and on. Aryeh Deri, leader of the ultra-Orthodox or Haredi Shas Party, defended not having women on the party election list by saying that politics is not the natural place for women. Additionally, former Shas candidate for the Knesset Rabbi Baruch Gazahay said that breast cancer and miscarriages were caused by women wearing immodest clothes and that women who exposed their bodies will be reincarnated as cows. Later he alleged that what he said was taken out of context. This chauvinistic coalition of extremism, misogyny, homophobia and supremacy is the alliance that Israel Prime Minister wanted. He was the one who forged the electoral alliance between religious Zionism, Jewish power and Noam in order to maximize the far-right representation in the Israeli Knesset. It is therefore no wonder that Netanyahu’s own Likud Party was criticized as misogynist because in the 2022 Knesset election there was only one woman among its top 10 candidates. Yaer Gloan from Meretz (which no longer exists as a party) observed on the day the Likud candidate list was announced that it was a good day for rapists. This is the government that the West is happy to support and arm in committing genocide, even while hypocritically lecturing others on women’s and human rights. About the AuthorThe Great March of Hope: Gaza’s Defiance against Erasure ( Middle East Monitor ) – The return of one million Palestinians from southern Gaza to the north on 27 January felt as if history was choreographing one of its most earth-shattering events in recent memory. Hundreds of thousands of people marched along a single street, the coastal Rashid Street, at the furthest western stretch […] |
Hundreds of thousands of people marched along a single street, the coastal Rashid Street, at the furthest western stretch of Gaza. Though these displaced masses were cut off from each other in massive displacement camps in central Gaza and the Mawasi region further south, they sang the same songs, chanted the same chants and used the same talking points. During their forced displacement, they had no electricity and no means of communication, let alone coordination. They were ordinary people, hauling a few items of clothing and whatever survival tools they had, following the unprecedented Israeli genocide. They headed north to homes they knew were likely destroyed by the Israeli army. Yet, they remained committed to their march back to their annihilated cities and refugee camps. Many smiled, others sang religious hymns and some recited national songs and poems. A little girl offered a news reporter a poem she composed. “I am a Palestinian girl, and I am proud,” her voice blared. She recited simple but emotional verses about identifying as a “strong, resilient Palestinian girl.” She spoke of her relationship with her family and community as the “daughter of heroes, the daughter of Gaza”, declaring that Gazans “prefer death over shame”. Her return to her destroyed home was a “day of victory.” “Victory” was a word repeated by virtually everyone interviewed by the media and countless times on social media. While many, including some sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, openly challenged the Gazans’ view of their perceived ‘victory’, they failed to appreciate the history of Palestine—indeed, the history of all colonised people who wrested their freedom from the claws of foreign, brutal enemies. “Difficulties break some men but make others. No axe is sharp enough to cut the soul of (someone) armed with the hope that he will rise even in the end,” iconic anti-apartheid South African leader, Nelson Mandela, wrote in a letter to his wife in 1975 from his prison cell. His words, written in the context of South Africa’s struggle, feel as if they were written for Palestinians, especially Gaza’s latest triumph against erasure—both physical and psychological. To understand this better, examine what Israeli political and military leaders said about northern Gaza immediately after the start of the genocidal war on 7 October, 2023: Israel will maintain “overall security responsibility” for the Gaza Strip “for an indefinite period,” said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in an interview with the ABC News network in November 2023. One year later, the Israeli army reiterated the same sentiment. In a statement, Israeli Brigadier General Itzik Cohen told Israeli reporters that there would be “no return” for any residents of northern Gaza. Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, went further. “It is possible to create a situation where Gaza’s population will be reduced to half its current size in two years,” he said on 26 November, stating that Israel should re-occupy Gaza and “encourage” the migration of its inhabitants. Many other Israeli officials and experts repeated the same notion like a predictable chorus. Settler groups held a conference last June to assess real estate opportunities in Gaza. In their minds, they were the only ones with a say over Gaza’s future. Palestinians seemed inconsequential to the wheel of history, controlled, as the powerful arrogantly believed, by Tel Aviv alone.
But the endless mass of people sang, “Do you think you can measure up to the free, measure up to the Palestinians?… We will die before we surrender our home; they call us the freedom fighters.” Many media outlets, including Israeli ones, reported a sense of shock in Israel as the population returned en masse to a fully destroyed region. The shock does not end there. Israel failed to occupy the north, ethnically cleanse Palestinians from Gaza or break their collective spirit. Instead, Palestinians emerged stronger, more determined and, equally frightening for Israel, with a new objective: returning to historic Palestine. For decades, Israel invested in a singular discourse regarding the internationally recognized Palestinian Right of Return to their homes in historic Palestine. Almost every Israeli leader or top official since the 1948 Nakba (the ‘Catastrophe’ resulting from the destruction of the Palestinian homeland) echoed this. Former Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, summarized it in 2000 during the Camp David negotiations, when he drew his “bottom line” in any peace deal with the Palestinians: there would be no right of return for Palestinian refugees. As Gaza has proven, Palestinians do not take their cues from Israel or even those who claim to represent them. As they marched north, four generations of Palestinians walked together, at times holding hands, singing for freedom and return—not only to the north but further north to historic Palestine itself. Since the Nakba, Israel has insisted it will write the history of the land between the Jordan River and the sea. But Palestinians continue to prove Israel wrong. They survived in Gaza, despite genocide. They remained. They returned. They emerged with a sense of victory. They are writing their own history, which, despite immeasurable and unimaginable losses, is also a history of hope and victory.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor or Informed Comment.  Unless otherwise stated in the article above, this work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.About the AuthorSyrian Regime Change: How rebel Victories often lead to unstable, non-inclusive Governments By Sally Sharif, University of British Columbia (The Conversation) – Syria’s rebel leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, has defended his decision to fill his cabinet with wartime loyalists and delay constitutional and electoral processes, describing these moves as pragmatic necessities for the country’s fragile transition. At the same time, he has called for the disarmament of all […] |
At the same time, he has called for the disarmament of all rival factions, especially the Kurds in northern Syria. In a recent Al-Arabiya interview, al-Sharaa outlined a vision for a presidential system, with appointed, not elected, delegates shaping Syria’s new constitution before elections could be held.
His blueprint leaves little room for international oversight, as he insisted the United Nations and foreign powers should play only a minimal role in the process.
Many observers are focusing on Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the factional winner of Syria’s protracted war, and its troubling history of ties to al-Qaida and ISIS.
Questions abound: Will the group’s past alliances shape its governance? Can a group with such a violent legacy chart a path to inclusive peace?
These questions are vital, but my research with colleagues at the universities of Notre Dame and Pittsburgh suggests that regimes emerging from rebel victories tend to share strikingly similar governance challenges. The question isn’t just whether Syria will chart a different course — it’s whether it can defy the grim lessons of history.
At the same time, he has called for the disarmament of all rival factions, especially the Kurds in northern Syria. In a recent Al-Arabiya interview, al-Sharaa outlined a vision for a presidential system, with appointed, not elected, delegates shaping Syria’s new constitution before elections could be held.
His blueprint leaves little room for international oversight, as he insisted the United Nations and foreign powers should play only a minimal role in the process.
Many observers are focusing on Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the factional winner of Syria’s protracted war, and its troubling history of ties to al-Qaida and ISIS.
Questions abound: Will the group’s past alliances shape its governance? Can a group with such a violent legacy chart a path to inclusive peace?
These questions are vital, but my research with colleagues at the universities of Notre Dame and Pittsburgh suggests that regimes emerging from rebel victories tend to share strikingly similar governance challenges. The question isn’t just whether Syria will chart a different course — it’s whether it can defy the grim lessons of history.
Rebel victories
Rebel victories tend to follow a predictable script: a regime born of war seeks to solidify power under the guise of stability.
The Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan in 1996 offers a stark example. After their military triumph, they penned a constitution in private, with input solely from Islamic scholars. No civil society entities were invited to the table. The resulting document prioritized ideology over inclusivity, and laid the groundwork for a repressive regime.
Rebel victories are not mere regime changes; they are seismic upheavals. Unlike negotiated transitions or elite-led coups, these regimes arise from violent conflict.
Our research has found that since 1946, 45 countries have experienced one or more episodes of rebel victory, leaving behind weak states with fragile institutions and deep societal divides. Governance in these situations often becomes synonymous with survival, with leaders prioritizing the consolidation of authority over fostering broad-based stability.
Cases of rebel victory underline a troubling trend: rebel leaders often use constitutional processes to centralize power rather than create institutions that can manage grievances or prevent renewed violence.
Rebel victories tend to follow a predictable script: a regime born of war seeks to solidify power under the guise of stability.
The Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan in 1996 offers a stark example. After their military triumph, they penned a constitution in private, with input solely from Islamic scholars. No civil society entities were invited to the table. The resulting document prioritized ideology over inclusivity, and laid the groundwork for a repressive regime.
Rebel victories are not mere regime changes; they are seismic upheavals. Unlike negotiated transitions or elite-led coups, these regimes arise from violent conflict.
Our research has found that since 1946, 45 countries have experienced one or more episodes of rebel victory, leaving behind weak states with fragile institutions and deep societal divides. Governance in these situations often becomes synonymous with survival, with leaders prioritizing the consolidation of authority over fostering broad-based stability.
Cases of rebel victory underline a troubling trend: rebel leaders often use constitutional processes to centralize power rather than create institutions that can manage grievances or prevent renewed violence.
Expropriation of private property
Our research indicates that constitutions drafted by rebel regimes frequently allow for selective enforcement of property rights, granting broad powers to expropriate under vague justifications. For instance, constitutions of rebel regimes are more likely to allow the government to expropriate private property for “general public purposes,” often without compensation or legal recourse.
Most victorious rebels use constitutional changes to maintain property insecurity as a strategy for consolidating power in an uncertain environment. After the fall of the Derg regime in Ethiopia in 1991, the country’s rebel regime used constitutional provisions to expropriate land for “public use,” selectively targeting marginalized communities and dissenting regions. It consolidated power under the guise of reform while undermining property rights and economic liberalization.
While such measures may temporarily stabilize power, they also fuel grievances, erode trust in state institutions, and often sow the seeds of future conflict.
A small number of rebel regimes, however, take a different path, opting for negotiated constitutional reform. By including rival groups in the process and extending political, social and civic rights to marginalized populations, these regimes can lay the groundwork for more inclusive governance and lasting peace.
Between 1989 and 2012, 56 per cent of comprehensive peace accords included provisions for constitutional reform. Such reforms often serve as nation-building mechanisms in newly formed states, or promote peace among divided communities. By creating a written, negotiated framework for governance, constitutions incentivize non-violent engagement and provide citizens and international entities with tools to hold rebel incumbents accountable.
Photo of Homs by Waseem Istanbuli: https://www.pexels.com/photo/urban-street-scene-in-homs-syria-with-cyclist-30478295/
Our research indicates that constitutions drafted by rebel regimes frequently allow for selective enforcement of property rights, granting broad powers to expropriate under vague justifications. For instance, constitutions of rebel regimes are more likely to allow the government to expropriate private property for “general public purposes,” often without compensation or legal recourse.
Most victorious rebels use constitutional changes to maintain property insecurity as a strategy for consolidating power in an uncertain environment. After the fall of the Derg regime in Ethiopia in 1991, the country’s rebel regime used constitutional provisions to expropriate land for “public use,” selectively targeting marginalized communities and dissenting regions. It consolidated power under the guise of reform while undermining property rights and economic liberalization.
While such measures may temporarily stabilize power, they also fuel grievances, erode trust in state institutions, and often sow the seeds of future conflict.
A small number of rebel regimes, however, take a different path, opting for negotiated constitutional reform. By including rival groups in the process and extending political, social and civic rights to marginalized populations, these regimes can lay the groundwork for more inclusive governance and lasting peace.
Between 1989 and 2012, 56 per cent of comprehensive peace accords included provisions for constitutional reform. Such reforms often serve as nation-building mechanisms in newly formed states, or promote peace among divided communities. By creating a written, negotiated framework for governance, constitutions incentivize non-violent engagement and provide citizens and international entities with tools to hold rebel incumbents accountable.
Photo of Homs by Waseem Istanbuli: https://www.pexels.com/photo/urban-street-scene-in-homs-syria-with-cyclist-30478295/
Helping rebel regimes
There are two ways the global community can influence what happens in rebel regimes — by being punitive and/or by incentivizing. When the Taliban won in Afghanistan in 2021, the international community quickly imposed sanctions on the new rebel regime and froze Afghan assets abroad.
In our analysis, we found that sanctions and arms embargoes — examples of punitive actions — do not significantly reduce the likelihood of civil wars recurring in rebel regimes.
Instead of punitive measures, the Global North in particular should try to influence Syria’s new leaders with incentivizing measures, such as offering economic aid in exchange for peace agreements and facilitating peace-building processes.
The good news for the international community is that, unlike the Taliban, al-Sharaa has shown an openness to collaborate with the West. This presents a critical opportunity to encourage Syria’s rebel leaders to adopt inclusive governance practices, which, in the long run, will reduce the risk of renewed conflict.
Instead of calling for the complete disarmament of rival factions and drafting a new constitution solely by delegates of the rebel winners, al-Sharaa should sign a peace agreement with rival factions which includes the terms for a negotiated, inclusive constitutional reform process.
Sally Sharif, Lecturer in Political Science, University of British Columbia
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
There are two ways the global community can influence what happens in rebel regimes — by being punitive and/or by incentivizing. When the Taliban won in Afghanistan in 2021, the international community quickly imposed sanctions on the new rebel regime and froze Afghan assets abroad.
In our analysis, we found that sanctions and arms embargoes — examples of punitive actions — do not significantly reduce the likelihood of civil wars recurring in rebel regimes.
Instead of punitive measures, the Global North in particular should try to influence Syria’s new leaders with incentivizing measures, such as offering economic aid in exchange for peace agreements and facilitating peace-building processes.
The good news for the international community is that, unlike the Taliban, al-Sharaa has shown an openness to collaborate with the West. This presents a critical opportunity to encourage Syria’s rebel leaders to adopt inclusive governance practices, which, in the long run, will reduce the risk of renewed conflict.
Instead of calling for the complete disarmament of rival factions and drafting a new constitution solely by delegates of the rebel winners, al-Sharaa should sign a peace agreement with rival factions which includes the terms for a negotiated, inclusive constitutional reform process.
Sally Sharif, Lecturer in Political Science, University of British Columbia
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
About the Author
Old posts you may have missed
Are we All Hungarians now, or Palestinians? Trump’s Onslaught on the Rule of Law and Civil Liberties Cognitive Strength and Community: Psychological coping Mechanisms of displaced Palestinians “The Lion has Fallen:” The End of Syria’s Brutal Regime and the Fate of the Refugees On the 46th Anniversary of Iranian Revolution: An Interview with Amb. John Limbert Making America great again by ethnically Cleansing the Palestinian People  “People Will Die”: The Trump Administration Said It Lifted Its Ban on Lifesaving Humanitarian Aid in Sudan, Yemen, etc. That’s Not TrueBy Brett Murphy and Anna Maria Barry-Jester | – ( ProPublica ) – On Friday morning, the staffers at a half dozen U.S.-funded medical facilities in Sudan who care for severely malnourished children had a choice to make: Defy President Donald Trump’s order to immediately stop their operations or let up to 100 babies and toddlers die. They chose the children. In spite of the order, they will keep their facilities open for as long as they can, according to three people with direct knowledge of the situation. The people requested anonymity for fear that the administration might target their group for reprisals. Trump’s order also meant they would stop receiving new, previously approved funds to cover salaries, IV bags and other supplies. They said it’s a matter of days, not weeks, before they run out. American-funded aid organizations around the globe, charged with providing lifesaving care for the most desperate and vulnerable populations imaginable, have for days been forced to completely halt their operations, turn away patients and lay off staff following a series of sudden stop-work demands from the Trump administration. Despite an announcement earlier this week ostensibly allowing lifesaving operations to continue, those earlier orders have not been rescinded. Many groups doing such lifesaving work either don’t know the right way to request an exemption to the order, known as a waiver, or have no sense of where their request stands. They’ve received little information from the U.S. government, where, in recent days, humanitarian officials have been summarily ousted or prohibited from communicating with the aid organizations. Trump’s rapid assault on the international aid system is quickly becoming the most consequential and far-reaching shift in U.S. humanitarian policy since the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after World War II, aid groups and government officials warned. Among the programs that remain grounded as of Friday: emergency medical care for displaced Palestinians and Yemenis fleeing war, heat and electricity for Ukrainian refugees and HIV treatment and mpox surveillance in Africa. Experts in and out of government have anxiously watched the fluid situation develop. “I’ve been an infectious disease doctor for 30 years, and I’ve never seen anything that scares me as much as this,” said Dr. Jennifer Furin, a Harvard Medical School physician who received a stop-work order for a program designing treatment plans for people with the most drug-resistant forms of tuberculosis. Infectious diseases do not know borders, she pointed out. “It’s terrifying.” Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio first issued the freeze on aid operations last Friday, which included limited exemptions. “The pause on all foreign assistance means a complete halt,” a top adviser wrote in an internal memo to staff. (The order was separate from Trump’s now-seemingly rescinded moratorium on domestic U.S. grants.) Aid groups across the globe began receiving emails that instructed them to immediately stop working while the government conducted a 90-day review of their programs to make sure they aligned with the administration’s agenda. Trump campaigned on an “America First” platform after unsuccessfully trying to slash the foreign assistance budget during his first term in office. The U.S. provides about $60 billion in nonmilitary humanitarian and development aid annually — less than 1% of the federal budget, but far more than any other country. The complex network of organizations who carry out the work is managed by the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development. Over the weekend, that system came to a standstill. There was widespread chaos and confusion as contractors scrambled to understand seemingly arbitrary orders from Washington and figure out how to get a waiver to continue working. By Tuesday evening, Trump and Rubio appeared to heed the international pressure and scale back the order by announcing that any “lifesaving” humanitarian efforts would be allowed to continue. Aid groups that specialize in saving lives were relieved and thought their stop-work orders would be reversed just as swiftly as they had arrived. But that hasn’t happened. Instead, more stop-work orders have been issued. As of Thursday, contractors worldwide were still grounded under the original orders and unable to secure waivers. Top Trump appointees arrested further funding and banned new projects for at least three months. “We need to correct the impression that the waiver was self-executing by virtue of the announcement,” said Marcia Wong, the former deputy assistant administrator of USAID’s humanitarian assistance bureau. Aid groups that had already received U.S. money were told they could not spend it or do any previously approved work. The contractors quoted in this article spoke on the condition of anonymity because they feared the administration might prolong their suspension or cancel their contracts completely. As crucial days and hours pass, aid groups say Trump’s order has already caused irreparable harm. Often without cash reserves or endowments, many organizations depend on U.S. funding entirely and have been forced to lay off staff and cancel contracts with vendors. One CEO said he expects up to 3,000 aid workers to lose their jobs in Washington alone, according to the trade publication Devex. Some groups may have to shutter altogether because they can’t afford to float their overhead costs without knowing if or when they’d get reimbursed. Critics say the past week has also undermined Trump’s own stated goals of American prosperity and security by opening a vacuum for international adversaries to fill, while putting millions at immediate and long-term risk. “A chaotic, unexplained and abrupt pause with no guidance has left all our partners around the world high and dry and America looking like a severely unreliable actor to do business with,” a USAID official told ProPublica, adding that other countries will now have good reason to look to China or Russia for the help they’re no longer getting from the U.S. “There’s nothing that was left untouched.” In response to a detailed list of questions for this article, the White House referred ProPublica to the State Department. The State Department said to direct all questions about USAID to the agency itself. USAID did not reply to our emails. Much of its communications staff was let go in the last week. In a public statement Wednesday, the State Department defended the foreign aid freezes and said the government has issued dozens of exemption waivers in recent days. “The previously announced 90-day pause and review of U.S. foreign aid is already paying dividends to our country and our people,” the statement said. “We are rooting out waste. We are blocking woke programs. And we are exposing activities that run contrary to our national interests. None of this would be possible if these programs remained on autopilot.” The dire international situation has been exacerbated by upheaval in Washington. This week, the Trump administration furloughed 500 support staff contractors from USAID’s humanitarian assistance bureau, about 40% of the unit, and fired 400 more from the global health bureau. Those workers were told to stop working and “please head home.” The remaining officials in Washington are now attempting to navigate a confounding waiver process and get lifesaving programs back online. Officials and diplomats told ProPublica that Trump’s new political appointees have not consulted USAID’s longtime humanitarian experts when crafting the new policies. As a result, career civil servants said they are struggling to understand the policy or how to carry it out. During an internal meeting early in the week, one of USAID’s top Middle East officials told mission directors that the bar for aid groups to qualify for an exemption to Trump’s freeze was high, according to meeting notes. It took until Thursday for the directors to receive instructions for how to fill out a spreadsheet with the programs they think should qualify for a waiver and why, a government employee told ProPublica. “The waiver for humanitarian assistance has been a farce,” another USAID official said. “Like a Russian nesting doll of fuck-ups,” said Jeremy Konyndyk, who ran some of USAID’s largest programs under Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden. “It’s just astonishing.” Fear of retaliation is permeating the government’s foreign aid agencies, which have become some of Trump’s first targets in his campaign against diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. Earlier this week, the administration pulled down photographs of children and families from the agency’s hallways. Many are afraid of being punished or fired for doing their jobs. Officials in USAID’s humanitarian affairs bureau say they have been prohibited from even accepting calendar invites from aid organizations or setting up out-of-office email replies. On Monday, USAID placed about 60 senior civil servants on administrative leave, citing unspecified attempts to “circumvent” the president’s agenda. The group received an email informing them of the decision without an explanation before they were locked out of the agency’s systems and banned from the building. “We’re civil servants,” one of the officials said. “I should have been given notice, due process. Instead there was an agencywide notice accusing people of subverting the president’s executive orders.” Then, on Thursday, the agency’s labor relations director told the group that he was withdrawing the agency’s decision because he found no evidence of misconduct, according to emails obtained by ProPublica. Hours later, the director was put on administrative leave himself. “The agency’s front office and DOGE instructed me to violate the due process of our employees by issuing immediate termination notices,” he wrote to colleagues, referring to Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency run by Elon Musk. (Musk did not respond to a request for comment.) Later that night, the original 60 officials were placed back on leave again. Diplomats have long lauded American humanitarian efforts overseas because they help build crucial alliances around the world with relatively little cost. When he created USAID in 1961, President John F. Kennedy called it a historic opportunity to improve the developing world so that countries don’t fall into economic collapse. That, he told Congress, “would be disastrous to our national security, harmful to our comparative prosperity and offensive to our conscience.” USAID is responsible for the most successful international health program of the 21st century. The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, created in 2003 by President George W. Bush to combat HIV globally, has saved an estimated 26 million lives over the past 22 years. It currently helps supply HIV medicines to 20 million people, and it funds HIV testing and jobs for thousands of health care workers, mainly in Africa. That all ground to a halt this week. Since receiving the U.S. government’s stop-work orders, contractors who manage the program say they have so far received little communication about what work they will be allowed to continue, or when. They are not allowed to hand out medicines already bought and sitting on shelves. If the exemption waivers don’t come through, policy analysts and HIV advocates say the full 90-day suspension of those programs would have disastrous consequences. More than 222,000 people pick up HIV treatment every day through the program, according to an analysis by amFAR, a nonprofit dedicated to AIDS research and advocacy. As of Friday morning, those orders had not been lifted, according to three people with direct knowledge. Up through last week, PEPFAR was providing HIV treatment to an estimated 680,000 pregnant women, the majority of whom are in Africa. A 90-day stoppage could lead to an estimated 136,000 babies acquiring HIV, according to the amfAR analysis. Since HIV testing services are also suspended, many of those could go undiagnosed. The disarray has also reached warzones and foreign governments, risking disease outbreaks and straining international relationships forged over decades. Government officials worried about contract personnel who were suddenly stranded in remote locations. In Syria, camp managers were told to abandon their site at al-Hawl refugee camp, which is also a prison for ISIS sympathizers. That left the refugees inside with nowhere to turn for basic supplies like food and gas. In Mogadishu, Somalia, the State Department instructed security guards who were protecting an arms depot from insurgents to simply walk off the site, according to a company official. When the guards asked what would happen to the armory, their government contacts told them they didn’t have any answers. (Concerns about the armory were first reported by The Wall Street Journal.) The contractors in Syria and Somalia have since been allowed to return to their sites. An executive at a health care nonprofit told ProPublica he has not been so lucky. His group is still under the stop-work order and can’t fund medical operations in Gaza, where there is a fragile ceasefire deal between Hamas and Israel that depends in part on the free flow of humanitarian aid. “People will die,” the executive said. “For organizations that rely solely or largely on U.S. government funding, this hurts. That may be part of the message. But there would be less drastic ways to send it.” In response to criticism, the Trump administration has offered misinformation. During a press conference, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, touted the initiative’s success so far and said the government “found that there was about to be $50 million taxpayer dollars that went out the door to fund condoms in Gaza.” Trump later went further, saying Hamas fighters were using the condoms to make explosives.
They didn’t name the contractor, but the State Department later cited $100 million in canceled aid packages slated for the International Medical Corps. IMC said in a response that no U.S. government funding was used for condoms or any other family-planning services. The organization has treated more than 33,000 Palestinians a month, according to the statement. It also operates one of the only centers in Gaza for severely malnourished children. “If the stop-work order remains in place,” IMC said, “we will be unable to sustain these activities beyond the next week or so.” There are also new outbreaks of Ebola in Uganda’s capital and of the disease’s cousin, the Marburg virus, in Tanzania. The U.S. has long been a key funder of biosecurity measures internationally, including at high-security labs. That funding is now on hold. In Ukraine, groups that provide vital humanitarian aid for civilians and soldiers fighting Russia have been told to stand down without any meaningful updates in days, according to three officials familiar with the situation. The halted services include first responders, fuel for hospitals and evacuation routes for refugees fleeing the front lines. “These are people who have been living in a war zone for three years this month,” the head of one of the organizations said, adding that they may have to lay off 20% of its staff. “And we are taking away these very basic services that they need to survive.” A contractor for the U.S. in Yemen said her entire team had been told to stop their work last weekend, which ProPublica corroborated with contemporaneous emails. “One of my tasks was summarizing how many people had been directly saved by our health programs every week,” she said. “It was usually 80 to 100.” Their stop-work order has not been lifted. It will be a week on Sunday. Brett Murphy I’m a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter on ProPublica’s national desk, where I write about the government, companies and power. Anna Maria Barry-Jester I report on global public health and the agencies that govern it, including the NIH, IHS, USAID and CDC. Via ProPublica |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.