English हिन्दी
Connect with us

Latest world news

Netanyahu’s fait accompli to Trump

Published

on

Netanyahu’s fait accompli to Trump

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]In a controversial move, the Israeli Knesset goes ahead with legalising 4,000 West Bank settlement homes retroactively

By Sujit Bhar

When hubris piggy-backs a high dose of self-confidence, the yield is an attitude that refuses to see reality as it is, and even refuses to address situations within social and legal parameters of the world. One can be forgiven for thinking the simile is vis-à-vis US President Donald J Trump. You are correct in your assumption, in some ways, and wrong as well.

For, this is about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

It was just the other day that the White House rebuked Israel for its decision to build more settlements in the West Bank. Yet on February 6, Israel’s Knesset passed a law that legalised—and retroactively too—no less than 4,000 settlement homes to be built on land that is privately held by Palestinians.

Which means that Netanyahu has not only thumbed his nose at the White House, but has also agreed to take on massive international outrage and an unending series of lawsuits in his stride.

On February 2, White House spokesman Sean Spicer had said in a statement: “While we don’t believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace, the construction of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements beyond the current borders may not be helpful.”

“The Trump administration has not taken an official position on settlement activity and looks forward to continuing discussions, including with Prime Minister (Benjamin) Netanyahu when he visits with President Trump later this month,” Spicer had added.

While the statement surprised many, considering Trump’s pre-election position vis-a-vis Israel, the latter had made up its mind. Reacting to Spicer, Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the UN, had put out a carefully worded reply. He told Israel Radio: “It’s too early to tell… I would not categorise this as a U-turn by the US administration but the issue is clearly on their agenda… the issue will be discussed when the prime minister (Netanyahu) meets the president in Washington. We will not always agree on everything.”

Back home, Israelis, it seems, refused to wait so long. One believes Netanyahu wants to hand Trump a fait accompli when they meet. That would be difficult for Trump to disengage from, given his original stand.

On February 6, there as a debate in the Knesset, before voting on the Bill took place. In his reply, Israeli cabinet minister Ofir Akunis reportedly said: “We are voting tonight on our right to the land. We are voting tonight on the connection between the Jewish people and its land. This whole land is ours. All of it.”

Total disregard for law

This is clear hubris, a total disregard for international law and even a disregard for the UN Security Council’s December 23 resolution that demanded the stoppage of further settlement activity on occupied Palestinian territory. It was a vote taken in US abstention, but it remains a legal document nevertheless.

This act was, obviously, not worked out through negotiations. When it becomes as law—it is expected to be challenged in the Israeli Supreme Court—it will give the administration legal teeth to confiscate land and hand out whatever compensation the administration deems fit. Such compensation can be money or alternative land, which is surely not there.

The problem in the West Bank is that it is on the border and around disputed land. International laws regarding this have little possibility of being implemented in this area.

The land agreement worked out with international arbitration after Israeli victory in the six-day war of 1967, has neither been fully accepted by Israel nor ratified by the Palestinians. Hence the entire West Bank and even the Gaza Strip remains disputed.

However, with the Palestinian Authority being recognised worldwide today, the “compensation” package is probably just a face-saver. If a Palestinian landowner refuses to part with his land, he will be forced to. That is the ground reality.

The Twist in the Tale

Here lies a twist. The way Netanyahu has been acting it seems as if he has always been against risking the wrath of the world in resuming building on the West Bank. There was, reportedly, huge argument and shouting during the voting process before it was passed 60-52 in the 120-member Knesset.

It has been reported that some spectators in visitors’ seats had shown a black cloth in protest. It is also true that Netanyahu has been concerned about possible international censure and had wanted to wait till his meeting with Trump later this month. This, however, was a ploy to try and sensitize the US regarding the issue and brandishing this support while facing the world. To him, this would have given it a legitimate tinge, however weird that may be.

His dilly-dallying with the law was clear when he had told reporters in London that he was okay with the law going through, but withdrawing into a shell thereafter, probably because of Spicer’s statement.

Also read: Common ground for Trump, Netanyahu, Modi

Hark back to the Security Council decision where ex-president Barack Obama (he was still in office at that time) pushed this resolution through the 15-member council, comprising interesting countries: New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela and Senegal. Even Egypt, which had initially been interested, quietly withdrew under pressure from Israel and Trump.

Before that Trump had issued an unofficial call for a veto to the bill. Israel had supported it.

It is also pertinent to recall that Netanyahu was livid, calling the vote “shameful”. He had summoned US Ambassador Daniel Shapiro for a stern talk. Back with his cabinet, he had told his colleagues in the ministry that the resolution was “reckless and destructive”.

Hence his current ingenuous attitude fails to find takers.

There is, however, some dissent which seems justified. Netanyahu’s attorney general has said that the bill was unconstitutional and that he would not defend it in the Supreme Court. He has a point. He would probably be the one defending it if the case goes to the International Criminal Court at The Hague, Netherlands. That court has already been apprised of a lot of pertinent details and is said to be examining the settlements issue.

The reactions

The Palestinian reaction was as expected. Nabil Abu Rdeneh, a spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, has said: “This is an escalation that would only lead to more instability and chaos. It is unacceptable. It is denounced and the international community should act immediately.”

The US State Department too has reacted cautiously. It has reportedly said: “The Trump administration will withhold comment on the legislation until the relevant court ruling.”

The move has not received support from the global Jewish advocacy group AJC. Its CEO David Harris has been quoted as saying: “Israel’s High Court can and should reverse this misguided legislation.” 

International legal position

The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 prohibits countries from moving population into territories occupied in a war. That, incidentally, was also the year that the state of Israel came into existence.

The trouble has been with Israeli stubbornness and, of course, with massive US support. Israel says this decision of 1949 does not apply to territory occupied during the Six-Day War of 1967. Proving this argument to be specious, the UN Security Council, its General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all said that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply.

Technically that left Israel with the fig leaf of the US support.

Many UN resolutions have clearly said that these settlements, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights occupations are illegal. The last UN Security Council decision wasn’t the first. Similar rulings had been passed in 1979 and 1980, too.

Israel has deliberately kept its position vis-a-vis the law somewhat vague and has failed to justify its stand about pushing its population into territory that the international community believes is Palestinian.

There has also been talk to equate this issue with the China-Tibet issue, but that has not gained as much traction as this. This is probably because of India’s somewhat weak position vis-a-vis the matter. It is the strength of conviction that keeps the Palestine issue hot around the world. The legal battles, that should ensue and then get lost in the mist, would still be pertinent in the social contexts of these nations.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Latest world news

Suicide bombing at Islamabad shrine kills 10, over 20 injured

A suicide bombing at a Shia shrine in Islamabad’s Shehzad Town area killed at least 10 people and injured over 20, prompting a city-wide emergency.

Published

on

Suicide bombing at Islamabad Shrine

At least 10 people were killed and around 20 others sustained injuries after a suicide bomber detonated explosives at a Shia shrine in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad, on Friday afternoon.

The explosion took place at Tarlai Imambargah, located in the Shehzad Town area, when the attacker set off the device at the main entrance of the place of worship, where devotees had gathered.

Bomber stopped at entrance, say officials

Security officials said alert guards intercepted the attacker at the gate, preventing him from entering the main hall of the shrine. The timely action is believed to have reduced the scale of casualties inside the premises.

However, the blast caused significant damage to the gate structure. Visuals from the site showed shattered windows of nearby buildings and debris scattered across the road following the explosion.

Emergency declared across Islamabad

In the aftermath of the attack, the Islamabad Inspector General of Police declared a city-wide emergency. Rescue teams and law enforcement personnel rushed to the site amid concerns that the casualty count could rise.

The injured were shifted to Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) and Polyclinic Hospital for treatment.

Recent history of suicide attacks in the capital

The incident comes less than three months after a suicide bombing outside a district and sessions court building in Islamabad on November 11, 2025, which killed 12 people and injured more than 30 others, raising renewed concerns over security in the capital.

Continue Reading

Latest world news

Bangladesh rushes to finalise US trade deal after India secures lower tariffs

Bangladesh is accelerating talks with the US to finalise a trade agreement after India secured lower tariffs, raising concerns over export competitiveness and transparency.

Published

on

Bangladesh is moving quickly to finalise a trade agreement with the United States after India concluded a deal with Washington that lowered tariffs on Indian goods to 18 per cent. The development has triggered concern in Dhaka that Bangladesh could lose market share in the US if it fails to secure comparable or better terms.

The US and Bangladesh are expected to sign the agreement on February 9, just three days before the country’s national election scheduled for February 12. The timing and lack of transparency surrounding the deal have drawn criticism from economists, business leaders and political observers.

Bangladesh’s economy is heavily dependent on ready-made garment exports, which account for nearly 90 per cent of its exports to the US. Any tariff disadvantage compared to India could significantly impact export orders and employment in the sector.

Tariff cuts under negotiation

The proposed agreement follows a series of tariff revisions imposed by Washington. In April 2025, the US imposed a steep 37 per cent tariff on Bangladeshi goods. This was reduced to 35 per cent in July and further lowered to 20 per cent in August.

According to reports, the upcoming deal is expected to bring tariffs down further to around 15 per cent. Officials see this as critical to keeping Bangladeshi exports competitive against Indian products in the US market.

Secrecy around negotiations raises concerns

Concerns have intensified due to the confidential nature of the negotiations. In mid-2025, the interim government led by Muhammad Yunus signed a formal non-disclosure agreement with the US, committing to keep tariff and trade discussions confidential.

No draft of the agreement has been shared with the public, parliament or industry stakeholders. A commerce adviser had earlier stated that the deal would not go against national interests and could be made public with US consent.

Policy experts, however, argue that the lack of disclosure prevents meaningful debate on the agreement’s long-term implications.

Conditions reportedly linked to the deal

Media reports suggest that the agreement may include several conditions. These include reducing imports from China, increasing military procurement from the US, and allowing American goods easier access to the Bangladeshi market.

It is also reported that Bangladesh may be required to accept US standards and certifications without additional scrutiny. Inspections on US vehicle imports and parts could reportedly be eased to facilitate smoother entry into the local market.

A senior policy analyst described the process as opaque, noting that signing the agreement just days before elections could bind the hands of the next elected government.

Garment industry left in the dark

Bangladesh exports garments and textiles worth between $7 billion and $8.4 billion annually to the US, accounting for nearly 96 per cent of its total exports to the American market. In comparison, Bangladesh imports around $2 billion worth of goods from the US.

With India and Bangladesh exporting similar apparel products, lower tariffs for India could shift US buyers towards Indian suppliers. Industry leaders warn that this could put millions of jobs at risk in Bangladesh’s garment sector, which employs 4 to 5 million workers, most of them women.

The sector contributes over 80 per cent of Bangladesh’s export earnings and nearly 20 per cent of its GDP.

A senior garment exporters’ association official said the agreement carries major implications and should ideally have been signed after the election to allow broader political and public discussion.

Political timing draws criticism

Economists and analysts have also questioned why an unelected interim administration is finalising a major trade agreement so close to national elections. They argue that responsibility for implementing the deal will fall on the incoming elected government.

A prominent economist criticised the process as lacking transparency and warned that the country could be pushed into long-term commitments without adequate scrutiny or public consent.

Meanwhile, US diplomats have indicated openness to engaging with various political forces in Bangladesh, including Jamaat-e-Islami, which has been banned multiple times in the country’s history.

Continue Reading

Latest world news

Pakistan faces domestic backlash after India secures lower tariffs in US trade deal

India’s US trade agreement has sparked criticism in Pakistan after Islamabad ended up with higher tariffs despite sustained outreach to Washington.

Published

on

PM Shehbaz Sharif

India’s recently concluded trade agreement with the United States has triggered strong domestic criticism in Pakistan, where opposition leaders, journalists and commentators are questioning Islamabad’s diplomatic strategy after the country ended up with higher tariffs than India.

Under the agreement announced on February 2, US tariffs on Indian exports have been set at 18 per cent, while Pakistani goods will face a 19 per cent rate. The outcome has drawn sharp reactions in Pakistan, especially given what critics describe as sustained efforts by its leadership to engage Washington in recent months.

New Delhi, by contrast, is widely seen as having resisted pressure from US President Donald Trump and negotiated from a position of economic leverage rather than personal diplomacy.

Social media reactions highlight public anger

Following the announcement, Trump shared images related to India, including India Gate and a magazine cover featuring Prime Minister Narendra Modi alongside himself, before confirming the revised tariff rate for Indian goods. The optics did not go unnoticed in Pakistan, where social media users questioned why India secured better terms without overt displays of political deference.

One widely circulated post by Pakistan-based X user Umar Ali used sharp language and imagery to criticise Pakistan’s approach, reflecting growing frustration among sections of the public over what they see as an unequal outcome despite extensive outreach efforts.

Opposition leaders question foreign policy approach

Former Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf minister Hammad Azhar described the outcome as a failure of strategy rather than circumstance. He argued that modern foreign policy depends on economic strength, market access and tariffs, not symbolic gestures or personal relationships, pointing to India’s recent trade agreements with both the US and the European Union as examples.

Other opposition figures echoed similar views, saying India negotiated with “strategic autonomy” while Pakistan relied too heavily on personal engagement with US leadership.

Journalists warn of economic consequences

Journalists in Pakistan also weighed in, warning that the tariff decision could deepen the country’s existing economic challenges. Concerns were raised about declining exports, falling foreign investment and reduced bargaining power on the global stage.

Commentator Imran Riaz Khan criticised what he termed a failed lobbying strategy, arguing that symbolic gestures cannot replace economic leverage in international negotiations. Digital creator Wajahat Khan similarly framed the outcome as a reflection of unequal negotiating positions, stating that India approached the talks as a partner, while Pakistan did not.

India’s trade deals expected to boost exports

India’s back-to-back trade agreements with the European Union and the United States are expected to provide a significant boost to exports. Estimates suggest these deals could add up to $150 billion in exports over the next decade, strengthening India’s economic standing and reinforcing its negotiating position in future global trade talks.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com