World News

Inside Biden’s Broken Relationship With Muslim and Arab American Leaders

Published

1 week ago

May 10, 2024

Seven months into Israel’s war in Gaza, Muslim and Arab American leaders say their channels of communication with President Biden’s White House have largely broken down, leaving the administration without a politically valuable chorus of support for his significant shift on the conflict this week.

Mr. Biden’s announcement that he had paused a shipment of 3,500 bombs to Israel and would not help with a ground invasion of Rafah was a sea change in U.S. policy that Arab American and Muslim leaders have demanded for months. But those who desired it the most have long ago written off the administration as complicit in a war that Gaza officials say has killed more than 34,000 people, arguing it was, essentially, too little, too late.

“The president’s announcement is extremely overdue and horribly insufficient,” said Abbas Alawieh, one of the leaders of a protest-vote movement against Mr. Biden that began in Michigan this year. “He needs to come out against this war. Period. That would be significant.”

Mr. Biden’s White House aides engaged in considerable outreach at the outset of the Democratic primary season, when the movement to cast protest votes in early states emerged as a surprising political headache. A cadre of high-level aides traveled to Dearborn, Mich., and Chicago to demonstrate their interest in listening, but Arab American leaders told them that without a momentous shift in U.S. policy — such as support for a permanent cease-fire — there was no need to keep talking.

By and large, prominent Muslim and Arab Americans have now concluded that they are irrevocably at odds with the Biden administration over its foreign policy, according to interviews with more than a dozen people involved in the talks. And many of them say they are tired of hearing that they should vote for Mr. Biden simply because former President Donald J. Trump would be worse.

“I have told them frankly: ‘Don’t waste your time anymore unless you have something substantial. This is a waste of time,’” Osama Siblani, the publisher of The Arab American News, an influential newspaper in Dearborn, said of White House officials.

The inability to maintain useful lines of communication with groups that represent a vocal, if small, bloc of Democratic voters could pose a significant problem for Mr. Biden’s re-election, given that the contest is likely to be determined by narrow margins in a few battleground states. The protest effort against Mr. Biden garnered double-digit support in some states during the Democratic primaries, although Biden aides believe that voters will ultimately see Mr. Trump as the bigger threat, and that issues like abortion, democracy and the economy will take precedence over Gaza.

Mr. Biden has ensured that the White House, rather than his re-election campaign, handles outreach to Arab and Muslim communities angry about the war in Gaza, since their dispute centers on policy rather than electoral politics. While the White House has designated an official, Mazen Basrawi, as its “liaison to American Muslim communities,” no one on Mr. Biden’s re-election campaign has a similar responsibility. Mr. Biden’s campaign aides say they are leaving such outreach to the White House for now at the request of community leaders.

Mr. Basrawi was among the officials in the White House delegations to meet with Arab American and Muslim leaders this year in Dearborn and Chicago. The February meeting in Dearborn took place only after the city’s mayor made a public show of refusing to meet with Julie Chavez Rodriguez, the campaign’s manager.

At the Dearborn meeting, in which a senior White House foreign policy aide expressed regret for the administration’s response to the war in Gaza, Mr. Basrawi apologized for a lack of engagement from the Biden administration with Dearborn officials.

“Just so you all know, we have been engaging with both the Arab community, particularly the Palestinian community and the Muslim community broadly, on a lot of these issues since October,” Mr. Basrawi told the group, according to an audio recording of the meeting reviewed by The New York Times. “To the extent that I’ve neglected to include all of you in my engagement, that’s on me. You know, this is an important community nationally.”

In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Basrawi said he was speaking to more officials now than he did before the war in Gaza began.

“My circle of contacts and regular conversations with leaders in the Muslim and Arab communities has grown since Oct. 7 to include more leaders on the local level,” he said.

The White House continues to reach out to Muslim and Arab American groups who remain willing to engage, particularly elected Democratic officials. White House officials met with a group of Lebanese Americans last month in Houston. And the White House’s Office of Public Engagement maintains an email list updating Muslim American leaders on the administration’s work on Israel and Gaza.

“We recognize that this is a painful time for many communities and that people have strong personal views,” said Andrew Bates, a spokesman for the White House. “It’s why the president remains deeply engaged in securing a hostage deal that would result in an immediate and sustained cease-fire.”

Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken is planning to meet with several prominent Arab American groups, according to three people familiar with the meeting who insisted on anonymity to discuss the private planning. But the event has been delayed, at a time when Mr. Blinken’s heavy travel schedule has repeatedly taken him out of the country.

There are limits to the people and groups that Mr. Biden’s White House will engage with about the Gaza conflict. The administration disavowed and cut off communication with the Council on American-Islamic Relations in December after its executive director said that Palestinians in Gaza had “the right to self-defense” but that Israel “as an occupying power” did not. (The group has said the comments were taken out of context.)

A White House official, who was granted anonymity to discuss internal strategy, said the administration would engage with people critical of Mr. Biden’s handling of the conflict but had cut ties with those who praised the Hamas attack on Oct. 7, made antisemitic statements or questioned Israel’s right to exist.

As the pro-Palestinian movement has spread beyond Arab American and Muslim communities to young people and progressives, those with direct or ancestral ties to the region have tended to carry the most influence in criticizing Mr. Biden and the White House’s outreach effort.

Wa’el Alzayat, the chief executive of Emgage, a group with close ties to the Biden administration that mobilizes Muslim voters, turned down an invitation to attend an iftar dinner at the White House last month.

“We don’t take lightly the opportunity to meet with the president,” Mr. Alzayat said. “But at some point, as organizations that have turned out the vote largely for Democrats, by expecting us to show up to these things and not delivering on policy, they’re actually burning us.”

He called Mr. Biden’s threat to cut off arms shipments “promising and important” and a result of pressure from antiwar leaders, but he said it “might be too late for Rafah,” as Israeli tanks and warplanes continue to bombard the city.

Some Arab Americans who have long had an entree to high-level Democratic politics expressed feelings of deep alienation.

“I’ve never had the feeling of being so shut out as I feel right now,” said James Zogby, a founder of the Arab American Institute in Washington and a Democratic National Committee member since 1993. “And it’s not just me. It’s leadership across the country.”

Mr. Zogby’s most recent letter to the White House, he said, has gone unanswered for three months, alongside numerous text messages and phone calls.

If some voters do break with Mr. Biden over Gaza, they are more likely to stay home or opt for a third party than vote for Mr. Trump. The former president has a long history of using anti-Muslim language, and he banned travel from several predominantly Muslim countries while in office. On Thursday, he voiced support for the invasion of Rafah, saying that Israel had to “get the job done.”

Democratic officials who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and who have engaged in talks with the White House are very careful about how they characterize those discussions publicly, given the anger among Muslim and Arab American voters.

Two mayors with whom White House officials said they had spoken about the Gaza conflict, Abdullah Hammoud of Dearborn and André Sayegh of Paterson, N.J., both declined to be interviewed.

Among Democrats who support Israel’s continued offensive in Gaza, Mr. Biden’s threat to halt arms was met with anger and concern. Politically, some worry that Mr. Biden may lose support from Jewish Americans and moderates. Mark Mellman, the founder of Democratic Majority for Israel, said in a statement that it was “dangerous” to weaken the U.S.-Israeli alliance.

Although polling has shown that Gaza is not a top issue for most voters, including young people, some Democrats supporting Mr. Biden fear that his Israel policy has alienated activists who could help his campaign on the ground.

“The people who are going to knock on doors and do social media and build the rallies, a lot of them do care deeply about the war,” said Representative Ro Khanna of California, a surrogate for the Biden campaign. “It’s more than just the polling. It’s how are we going to get our core group of organizers and activists inspired to be fully out there come the fall?”

Michael Gold contributed reporting.

Source link

World News

Why All Married People Need a Post-Nuptial Agreement

Published

1 hour ago

May 20, 2024

Jeff Somers

Marriage is usually talked about in terms of love and relationships—the intensity of emotion you feel toward one another, and the safety and security of finding your Person and knowing you’ll spend the rest of your life with them.

Except, of course, that the time spent married is typically less than a decade—most marriages in the U.S. end after about seven years. Most marriages end in divorce—about half of all first marriages wind up in divorce court, and that rate skyrockets with second (67%) and third (73%) marriages.

That’s why it’s important to remember that marriage is a legally binding contract as much as it is a symbolic joining of two souls. Viewed like that, stuff like pre-nuptial agreements don’t seem so cold and brutal; they can be a godsend if your marriage is one of those that don’t make it. If you’ve already gotten married, it’s not too late to get rational about your partnership and enshrine your mutual understanding in writing, though. You can always draw up a post-nuptial agreement.

Post-nuptial agreements

A post-nuptial agreement is exactly what it sounds like: a legal agreement between spouses that you create and sign after you’re already married. You might enter into one because you didn’t create a pre-nuptial agreement and want to clarify things, or your financial situation has changed and now you feel the need to formalize some understandings. The crucial difference is the focus of the document: A pre-nup is mostly focused on you as an individual, with no implied obligation to your spouse—it protects the assets you already had before the marriage. A post-nup explicitly deals with your obligation to your spouse.

Post-nuptial agreements typically outline a few common aspects of your legal and financial responsibilities to each other:

Inventory and division of assets. A post-nup will typically clearly state who owns what, and how the assets will be divided in the case of divorce. This can range from property like a home to investments to a family-owned business. For example, if the couple has a shared investment portfolio but one spouse contributes 75% of the money invested in it, the post-nup could specify that the funds will be split 75-25 in case of divorce, which can spare you a lot of squabbling.
Allocation of debts and other obligations. A post-nup can also clearly define who will be responsible for debts that are currently shared within the marriage. If you took out a large loan, for example, or have a car payment or mortgage, the post-nup defines who carries that debt if the marriage is dissolved.
Alimony and support. A post-nup can also define future financial arrangements, like spousal support. For example, if one spouse stops working in order to care for children and take care of the home, the post-nup could define the earnings they sacrificed and require the other spouse to pay support. This can make a partner feel more secure in their choice to give up a career.

A post-nuptial agreement can also contain provisions for future property and financial windfalls. For example, it can specify that any property acquired by either partner after signing the post-nup will be considered their individual asset and not a shared one. You can also define how inheritances will be handled, or how large gifts will be handled. For example, if one spouse’s parents gave the couple a large monetary gift in order to purchase a house, the post-nup can define whether the other spouse should repay their share of that gift or if it should be forgiven and considered moot.

One thing you can’t put in a post-nuptial agreement is custody arrangements. Even if both partners agree on plans for children in the case of divorce, the actual decisions surrounding custody and support are almost always reserved for the court to decide based on the best interests of the child. Even if you try to codify custody and support in your post-nup, it won’t be enforceable unless a court agrees with you on every point.

How to create a post-nuptial agreement

Post-nuptial agreements can be a murky area of the law, depending on where you live. Some states have clear legal guidelines for them; other states have very little precedent. Your best bet is always to engage the services of an experienced family lawyer when crafting one to ensure it will be enforceable in your state.

Generally speaking, however, as long as the agreement satisfies some basic principles you’ll be fine. The agreemnet should be:

In writing. The agreement has to be in writing—an “understanding” or oral contract, even if affirmed by both parties, is usually not going to cut it. And both parties must sign the agreement in a legally acceptable way.
Voluntary and just. Neither partner can be pressured or compelled into signing the post-nuptial agreement. For example, if one partner threatens to leave the other penniless unless they sign an agreement that strongly favors them, that agreement is most likely unenforceable.

Similarly, the terms of the agreement must usually also be reasonable and fair. Even if both sides agree, if the courts find any provisions to be unconscionable or unjust the agreement may be rejected.
Comprehensive. Post-nuptial agreements have to fully disclose all relevant information. Hiding assets or other information can render the whole agreement unenforceable.

Like pre-nuptial agreements, post-nups don’t only apply to troubled marriages. These agreements can create a sense of security for both partners by providing clear guidelines, an inventory of assets, and other ground rules for the marriage. Plus, since these agreements remove much of the financial uncertainty surrounding divorce, they can also help couples focus more on the emotional bonds between them and the relationship, because they don’t have to worry about maneuvering financially to protect themselves.

Source link

World News

Julian Assange trial in London could decide whether the WikiLeaks founder is extradited to the US

Published

4 hours ago

May 20, 2024

Associated Press

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange faces a court hearing in London that could end with him being sent to the U.S. to face espionage charges, or provide him with another chance to appeal his extradition.
The U.S. has assured judges that Assange’s rights would be protected and that he would not face the death penalty in the event of extradition, but Assange’s legal team argues they are not good enough to rely on.
Assange was indicted on 17 espionage charges and one charge of computer misuse over his website’s publication of classified U.S. documents almost 15 years ago.

Julian Assange faced a key hearing Monday in the High Court in London that could end with him being sent to the U.S. to face espionage charges, or could provide him another chance to appeal his extradition.

The WikiLeaks founder, who has spent the past five years in a British prison, was not in court to hear his fate being debated. He did not attend for health reasons, his lawyer Edward Fitzgerald said.

The outcome of the hearing will depend on how much weight judges give to assurances U.S. officials have provided that Assange’s rights won’t be trampled if he goes on trial.

AUSTRALIAN LAWMAKERS SEND LETTER URGING BIDEN TO DROP CASE AGAINST JULIAN ASSANGE ON WORLD PRESS FREEDOM DAY

In March, two judges rejected the bulk of Assange’s arguments but said he could take his case to the Court of Appeal unless the U.S. guaranteed he would not face the death penalty if extradited and would have the same free speech protections as a U.S. citizen.

The court said that if Assange, who is an Australian citizen, couldn’t rely on the First Amendment then it was arguable his extradition would be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, which also provides free speech and media protections.

The U.S. has provided those reassurances, though Assange’s legal team and supporters argue they are not good enough to rely on to send him to the U.S. federal court system.

Protesters hold placards outside the High Court in London ahead of Julian Assange's hearing

Protesters hold placards outside the High Court in London on May 20, 2024. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange faces a hearing Monday in the High Court in London that could end with him being sent to the U.S. to face espionage charges, or provide him with another chance to appeal his extradition. (AP Photo/Kin Cheung)

The U.S. said Assange could seek to rely on the rights and protections of the First Amendment but that a decision on that would ultimately be up to a judge. In the past, the U.S. said it would argue at trial that Assange is not entitled to the constitutional protection because he is not a U.S. citizen.

“The U.S. has limited itself to blatant weasel words claiming that Julian can ‘seek to raise’ the First Amendment if extradited,” his wife, Stella Assange, said. “The diplomatic note does nothing to relieve our family’s extreme distress about his future — his grim expectation of spending the rest of his life in isolation in U.S. prison for publishing award-winning journalism.”

Assange, 52, has been indicted on 17 espionage charges and one charge of computer misuse over his website’s publication of a trove of classified U.S. documents almost 15 years ago. American prosecutors allege that Assange encouraged and helped U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to steal diplomatic cables and military files that WikiLeaks published.

Commuters emerging from a Tube stop near the courthouse couldn’t miss a large sign bearing Assange’s photo and the words, “Publishing is not a crime. War crimes are.” Scores of supporters gathered outside the neo-Gothic Royal Courts of Justice chanting “Free Julian Assange” and “Press freedom, Assange freedom.”

Some held a large white banner aimed at President Joe Biden, exhorting: “Let him go Joe.”

Assange’s lawyers say he could face up to 175 years in prison if convicted, though American authorities have said any sentence would likely be much shorter.

Assange’s family and supporters say his physical and mental health have suffered during more than a decade of legal battles, which includes seven years spent inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London from 2012 until 2019. He has spent the past five years in a British high-security prison.

Assange’s lawyers argued in February that he was a journalist who exposed U.S. military wrongdoing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sending him to the U.S., they said, would expose him to a politically motivated prosecution and risk a “flagrant denial of justice.”

The U.S. government says Assange’s actions went way beyond those of a journalist gathering information, amounting to an attempt to solicit, steal and indiscriminately publish classified government documents.

If Assange prevails Monday, it would set the stage for an appeal process likely to extend what has already been a long legal saga.

If the court accepts the word of the U.S., it would mark the end of Assange’s legal challenges in the U.K., though it’s unclear what would immediately follow.

His legal team is prepared to ask the European Court of Human Rights to intervene. But his supporters fear Assange could be transferred before the court in Strasbourg, France, could halt his removal.

Judges Victoria Sharp and Jeremy Johnson may also postpone issuing a decision.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

If Assange loses in court, he still may have another shot at freedom.

Biden said last month that he was considering a request from Australia to drop the case and let Assange return to his home country.

Officials provided no other details but Stella Assange said it was “a good sign” and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the comment was encouraging.

Source link