“Israel should grant Palestinians in the West Bank rights protections at least equal to those afforded Israeli citizens, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today, citing Israel’s 52 years of occupation with no end in sight. The law of occupation permits occupiers to restrict some civil rights in the early days of an occupation based on limited security justifications, but sweeping restrictions are unjustified and unlawful after five decades. The 92-page report…evaluates Israeli military orders that criminalize nonviolent political activity, including protesting, publishing material ‘having a political significance,’ and joining groups ‘hostile’ to Israel. Human Rights Watch examined several case studies to show that Israel unjustifiably relies on these sweeping orders to jail Palestinians for anti-occupation speech, activism, or political affiliations; outlaw political and other nongovernmental organizations; and shut down media outlets.”

“According to Abu Sneineh, the municipality plans to petition the Israeli judiciary to stop the development, despite a lack of confidence in the outcome. ‘We have no other choice,’ he added. As soon as the municipality received the notice, it began forming a legal committee to build a case in cooperation with several local institutions such as the province, the Hebron Rehabilitation Committee and the Palestinian Authority Committee Against the Wall and Settlements. The committee will file a lawsuit if necessary. Samer Shehadeh, the city’s legal adviser, said Bennett’s decision is not based on legal grounds but on political ones, and the committee will take legal action after the end of the one-month response period the municipality was granted beginning Dec. 2. ‘We will object [at] the Planning and Building Committee in the Israeli Civil Administration to all the plans that will be submitted for the neighborhood’s construction, and if the objection is rejected, we will resort to the Supreme Planning Council. If the plans are approved by the Supreme Planning Council, we will submit an appeal to the Supreme Court of Israel,’ Shehadeh said.”

“The data, prepared by Israel for the U.S. government, shows that in the first quarter the government spent 390 million shekels ($111.5 million) on West Bank settlements. That was the highest first-quarter total in a decade, even though previous years included spending on Golan Heights communities… Peace Now, which tracks government spending on settlements, says that the high level of spending comes at the expense of communities inside Israel. ‘The government has lost all sense of shame,’ the organization said after the cabinet voted two weeks ago to allocate 34.5 million shekels from the 2019 budget for security subsidies to local councils in the West Bank. The same amount had been approved in earlier years but had been allocated for 2019. In addition, 5.5 million shekels were awarded to first aid stations in the West Bank.”

“In the long run, the idea is to create a diplomatic and social challenge for a different future government which will seek to resume the diplomatic process and negotiate a two-state solution, which will involve the evacuation of Israelis now living in isolated houses in the heart of Palestinian neighborhoods, maintaining a violent and hostile relationship with their neighbors. It is not something new or surprising to note that in earlier negotiations with the Palestinians, the Jewish settlements in the Hebron area were never included in any Israeli offer to swap territories, due to the demographic reality described here. The seeds of calamity embedded in the projected new neighborhood, to be situated above the wholesale market in Hebron, are just the beginning. Anyone wandering the streets of Hebron these days can observe the full intent through signs hung up at every corner by Jewish residents: ‘From the Old City to Nofei Mamre [a distant neighborhood in the city], since our holy city Hebron only wishes to grow,’ or ‘a fundraising campaign for saving the next batch of houses in Hebron’.”

“The polls also show that the merger of right-wing parties (HaBayit HaYehudi and the National Union), as well as Otzma Yehudit (which received 83,000 votes in the September election) will not pass the electoral threshold. On the other hand, Netanyahu’s polls show that if the first two parties (a HaBayit HaYehudi/National Union platform, and Otzma Yehudit) run together as a single list, they would have no problem passing the electoral threshold with five seats. Furthermore, such a merger with radical right Otzma Yehudit might push more moderate national religious voters to turn elsewhere. In fact, such a merger would help the New Right win more moderate voters from the religious Zionist camp, giving it as many as eight seats. If that happens, the right-wing ultra-Orthodox bloc has a reasonable chance of getting 61 seats or more. As one senior member of the Likud told Al-Monitor, that is the main motivation behind Netanyahu’s decision to reject the initiative to form a unity government. A right-wing government would help Netanyahu receive immunity from the Knesset, and postpone his trial until after he finishes serving as prime minister.”

“MK Gideon Sa’ar launched his longshot bid to unseat Benjamin Netanyahu as leader of the Likud party Monday, saying that the prime minister has ‘no chance’ of winning the next elections and urging change as the only way to ensure the continued right wing rule in the country. Cheered by a crowd of some 1,000 people chanting his name as ‘the next prime minister,’ Sa’ar cast himself as an antidote to longtime leader Netanyahu, who has failed in successive bids to form a coalition government”

“The lawmakers who voted the 22nd Knesset out of office at midnight on Dec. 11 drove home in a thoughtful mood, some likely reflecting on their political fate. Not so the Knesset members of the Joint List who posed for a group photo in the empty Knesset plenum, smiling and holding up a sign that said ‘#15.’ ‘We have disbanded the Knesset ahead of the next achievement: 15 seats for the Joint List,’ tweeted Ta’al party leader Ahmad Tibi. The Joint List representatives believe that the goal is within reach now that it has proven to voters that they played a significant role in Netanyahu’s failure to form a radical right-wing government, which would certainly have continued its incitement and exclusion campaign against the 21% Arab minority.”

“Congress on Monday rejected a request from the Trump administration to devote $175 million to a special fund that could have supported the White House’s Mideast peace plan plan. This decision, which was reached as part of a bi-partisan agreement on the U.S. government’s budget for 2020, is the latest signal coming out of Washington that the peace plan isn’t likely to be released anytime soon, mostly because of the ongoing political crisis in Israel. In March, the White House sent its budget proposal to Congress, including a request for $175 million for a “Diplomatic Progress Fund.” As first reported by Haaretz, the White House document explained that this fund was necessary in order to provide “flexibility” in the administration’s Middle East policy, in the event of progress toward regional peace. The White House specifically said at the time that this sum could potentially be invested in aid to the Palestinians. For the past two years, the Trump administration has cut almost all U.S. aid to the Palestinians, including funds for civilian and educational projects, as well as for hospitals. The budget request in March showed that the administration wanted to have money that would be set aside and be available in case ties with the Palestinians improved.”

“It’s unclear who is funding DMFI. Asked by The Nation who is giving money to them, Rosen, the DMFI spokesperson, would only say, ‘We will be disclosing them as per legal requirements.’ They have emerged onto an already crowded scene of pro-Israel lobby groups that in recent years has splintered more and more along partisan lines, a product of Israel’s slowly becoming part of the partisan tug-of-war in Washington. Representing the liberal line that Israel has to end its occupation to remain a Jewish and democratic state is J Street. Hanging on to the fraying center-right line of support for a two-state solution while opposing criticism of Israel is AIPAC. And on the resurgent right are groups like the Zionist Organization of America, the Sheldon Adelson–backed organization that has risen in influence in the Trump era and which is staunchly opposed to a Palestinian state and an end to Israel’s military occupation. Still, members of the pro-Israel establishment see space for a Democratic-focused group to curb progressives in the party who are voicing harsh critiques of Israel’s human rights record…DMFI has also attracted attention for something the group doesn’t want to highlight: its close ties to AIPAC, the flagship Israel lobby group that has sought to make inroads into the progressive community but has failed at doing so…DMFI denied any connection to AIPAC, telling The Nation that ‘we are a completely independent organization and have no affiliation with AIPAC.’ Still, the links to the group are many. A Forward article from earlier this year pointed out that 11 of DMFI’s 14 board members have worked at, volunteered with, donated to, or spoken at AIPAC. “

Mitchell Plitnick writes, “As President Trump made waves with an executive order meant to stifle speech, action, and education that highlights Palestinian rights, a case that might have been affected by that very order was resolved in Massachusetts. The suit, brought by several anonymous students against the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, attempted to censure the university for hosting a panel that supported the movement for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel and to establish that such events were inherently discriminatory and must be forbidden on campus…The suit was just one of a seemingly endless array of efforts to prevent any debate on Palestinian rights outside of the rail-thin boundaries established by the right-wing pro-Israel community. But it is particularly important because the argument in the suit relied on the same definition of antisemitism Trump used in his executive order. In their complaint, the lawyers for the anonymous UMass students wrote, ‘Each of these panelists (Sarsour, Hill, Waters, and Zirin) has a publicly known reputation for either being anti-Semitic and/or supporting known anti-Semites. Much of the activities and speech engaged in by these panelists is a direct violation of the definition of anti-Semitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) annexed hereto as Exhibit B. This definition of anti-Semitism has been adopted by the U.S. Department of State, see Exhibit C, and the U.S. Department of Education, see Exhibit D’.”