Insights, analysis and must reads from CNN's Fareed Zakaria and the Global Public Square team, compiled by Global Briefing editor Chris Good Seeing this newsletter as a forward? Sign up here. July 24, 2024 |
|
|
Netanyahu's Mixed Reception |
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the US Congress this afternoon, lauding President Joe Biden for standing by Israel after Oct. 7 (though the two men have also feuded over Israel's conduct in Gaza). Netanyahu defended his government against accusations of human-right abuses in its Gaza campaign and praised the US–Israeli alliance.
At the Capitol, the in-person response to Netanyahu's speech was warm, including much applause from lawmakers in attendance. But not everyone was happy: Earlier today, Sen. Bernie Sanders tweeted that Netanyahu is a "war criminal." Democratic Rep. Joaquin Castro suggested, also on X, that Netanyahu "should be standing in front of a criminal tribunal," not Congress. During the speech, Palestinian-American Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib held up a sign accusing Netanyahu of genocide.
Analysts have noted the odd timing of Netanyahu's pre-planned speech. At the Middle East Institute, Nimrod Goren wrote before Netanyahu's address: "For some Israelis and Americans alike, it was awkward to see Netanyahu receive a bipartisan invitation to address Congress and an invitation to the White House—which he so much wanted—prior to reaching a Gaza cease-fire and hostage release deal. The withdrawal of President Joe Biden from the presidential race, in proximity to the visit, adds a new dimension. It overshadows Netanyahu's trip and will probably change its dynamics, creating a gap between the importance attributed to the visit in Israel and the more limited interest it may now generate in Washington." |
|
|
Another Front for Israel? |
"More than nine months into its war with Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Israel now appears closer than ever to a second, even larger war with Hezbollah on its northern border," Amos Harel, a defense analyst for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, writes in a Foreign Affairs essay. "In June, the Israel Defense Forces [IDF] announced that plans for a full-scale attack in southern Lebanon had been approved. And in mid-July, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said that the Iranian-backed Shiite group was prepared to broaden its rocket attacks to a wider range of Israeli towns."
That's disturbing, because as Harel puts it, "a full-scale war between Israel and Hezbollah would have consequences that dwarf the current Gaza conflict." Israel and Hezbollah fought a war in 2006 that devastated Lebanon. Hezbollah has a massive rocket arsenal, and observers have warned it could break through Israel's missile defenses and do real damage.
In the current issue of The New Yorker, staff writer and veteran Middle East war reporter Dexter Filkins writes of cross-border fire that has already displaced some 60,000 Israelis and about 90,000 Lebanese.
But the fighting has been relatively limited. Citing an unnamed US official, Filkins tells of successful, late-night White House efforts to talk Israel out of launching another war to neutralize Hezbollah after Oct. 7. The day after Hamas attacked southern Israel, Hezbollah began firing on Israel—in order to drain Israel's resources from the Gaza campaign, Hezbollah's deputy secretary-general tells Filkins. Thankfully, Harel writes for Foreign Affairs, neither Israel nor Hezbollah appears to have much appetite for a full-blown conflict. The New Yorker's Filkins writes that a "Western official who has met [Hezbollah leader Hassan] Nasrallah told me that he has no intention of goading the Israelis into a big fight. He drew a contrast with Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader. 'Sinwar doesn't care about the Palestinian people who have been killed,' he said. 'Nasrallah would never have ordered the October 7th attack. He doesn't want to see Lebanon destroyed.'" |
|
|
The New Presidential Race |
What kind of presidential race has Vice President Kamala Harris found herself in, since Biden dropped his reelection bid and the Democratic Party swiftly rallied around her?
Battleground surveys had shown Trump leading or statistically tied with Biden in almost all instances. It will take time before pollsters can collect and publish a critical mass of state-by-state surveys on the Harris vs. Trump matchup. New nationwide CNN polling, however, suggests Harris has improved on Biden's prospects, Ariel Edwards-Levy and Jennifer Agiesta of CNN's polling unit write: "Trump holds 49% support among registered voters nationwide to Harris' 46%, a finding within the poll's margin of sampling error. That's a closer contest than earlier CNN polling this year had found on the matchup between Biden and Trump. … The poll, conducted online July 22 and 23, surveyed registered voters who had previously participated in CNN surveys in April or June, both of which found Trump leading Biden by 6 points in a head-to-head matchup. Checking back in with the same people means that shifts in preferences are more likely to reflect real changes over time and not just statistical noise." |
|
|
This week, China held its Third Plenum, a Communist Party policy-planning event held roughly every five years. The most important takeaway seems to be a lack of big changes in direction amid China's post-Covid-19 economic lag.
Previewing the event, Foreign Policy's James Palmer had written: "Most of the time, the Chinese political calendar has the verve of a long corporate Zoom meeting. CCP events are effectively presentations of already agreed-on politics—especially under President Xi Jinping, who is a far more powerful autocrat than his predecessors. It's rare that the personal rivalries and mafiosi intrigues of the party spill out into the open, as they did with former Commerce Minister Bo Xilai's downfall at the so-called Two Sessions in 2012. But the delay of the Third Plenum, which was originally slated to be held in 2023, indicates that the political maneuverings around the event may have been particularly intense."
The gathering produced a long communiqué about China's policy direction. The Economist writes: "It stressed continuity rather than a course correction. … It described the interweaving of national security and economic development, the bet on high-tech 'new productive forces' and the exhausting ideological conformity China's leader now demands."
At the British international-affairs think tank Chatham House, David Lubin concludes: "All in all, the third plenum looks like a missed opportunity to give Chinese households any reassurance about their economic position. For a security-obsessed leadership, though, that may not have been the point." |
|
|
| You are receiving this newsletter because you signed up for Fareed's Global Briefing.
To stop receiving this newsletter, unsubscribe or sign up to manage your CNN account | |
® © 2024 Cable News Network. A Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All Rights Reserved.
1050 Techwood Drive NW, Atlanta, GA 30318 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario