Israeli settlers rampage at a military base in the West Bank
TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — Dozens of Israeli settlers rampaged around a military base in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, setting fires, vandalizing military vehicles, spraying graffiti and attacking soldiers, the military said.
Sunday night's unrest came after several attacks in the West Bank carried out by Jewish settlers and anger at their arrests by security forces attempting to contain the violence over the past few days.
More than 100 settlers on Wednesday evening entered the West Bank town of Kfar Malik, setting property ablaze and opening fire on Palestinians who tried to stop them, Najeb Rostom, head of the local council, said. Three Palestinians were killed after the military intervened. Israeli security forces arrested five settlers.
Far-right Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who has often defended Israelis accused of similar crimes, offered a rare condemnation of Sunday's violence. 'Attacking security forces, security facilities, and IDF soldiers who are our brothers, our protectors, is a red line, and must be dealt with in full severity. We are brothers,' he wrote on X.
Opposition leader Yair Lapid told Israel's Army radio that the riots were carried out by 'Jewish terrorists, gangs of criminals, who feel backed by the (governing) coalition.'
A hard-line supporter of Jewish settlements, Ben-Gvir was previously convicted in Israel of racist incitement and support for terrorist groups, and has called for the deportation of all Arab citizens from Israel. Though once widely shunned by Israel's politicians, Ben-Gvir's influence has grown and alongside a shift to the right in the country's electorate has further emboldened violence from extremist settlers in the West Bank.
Footage on Israeli media showed dozens of young, religious men typically associated with ' hilltop youth,' an extremist movement of Israeli settlers who occupy West Bank hilltops and have been accused of attacking Palestinians and their property. The footage showed security forces using stun grenades as dozens of settlers gathered around the military base just north of Ramallah. The Israeli military released photos of the infrastructure burned in the attack, which it said included 'systems that help thwart terrorist attacks and maintain security.'
Defense Minister Israel Katz vowed Monday to 'eradicate this violence from the root,' and implored the extremist settlers to remember that many of the security forces are exhausted reservists serving multiple rounds of duty.
Over the past two years of the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, Palestinian residents in the West Bank have reported a major increase in Israeli checkpoints and delays across the territory. Israel, meanwhile, says threats from the West Bank against its citizens are on the rise.
Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem in the 1967 Mideast war, and Palestinians want all three territories for their future state. The West Bank is home to some 3 million Palestinians live under seemingly open-ended Israeli military rule, and 500,000 Jewish settlers. The international community overwhelmingly considers settlements illegal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
13 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Did Republicans Just Kill the Filibuster?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Republicans are relying on rarely employed accounting methods to push Donald Trump's "one, big beautiful bill" through the Senate, and in doing so could upend established Congressional procedures surrounding the reconciliation process and the filibuster. Why It Matters The filibuster—a procedural move allowing senators to extend debates on bills indefinitely without a 60-vote majority—has long been viewed as a move to encourage bipartisanship in Congress and as a bulwark against political dominance by slim majorities in the upper chamber. Experts told Newsweek that recent moves by Republicans while trying to pass Trump's tax legislation could create new precedent surrounding the filibuster for years to come, including past the period of GOP control. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham looks out from the upper chamber, June 11, 2025. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham looks out from the upper chamber, June 11, 2025. J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo What To Know Republicans are employing the reconciliation process to pass Trump's tax bill, the centerpiece of his second-term domestic agenda, allowing them to eventually advance the bill with only a majority vote rather than the 60 votes normally needed to do away with the threat of a filibuster. A central element of the bill, which the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates would add $4.2 trillion to the nation's deficit through 2034, is the extension of the tax cuts enacted during Trump's first term. Sweeping fiscal moves of this kind are traditionally restricted by the Byrd Rule, adopted in 1985, which limits the sort of policies that can be folded into bills passed through reconciliation, and forbids legislation from adding to the nation's deficit beyond 10 years. However, as reported by AP, Congressional Budget Office Director Phillip Swagel recently notified Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley of the Senate Budget Committee that elements of the Big, Beautiful Bill would increase the deficit "in years after 2034." Going by this assessment, the Republican bill would violate the rule that determines what legislation can clear the Senate with a simple majority, which could force Republicans to amend significant portions of the legislation. In response to these concerns, and Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough advising that certain provisions in the bill were not budget-related and therefore in violation of Senate rules, Republicans have now argued that Trump's 2017 tax cuts should be treated as part of the fiscal "baseline" forecast, even though these have not yet been extended. Republicans have also cited Section 312 of Congressional Budget Act to argue that the final authority for determining baseline spending figures, and whether the tax portion of the bill violates Byrd, lies with Republican Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham. When approached by Newsweek for comment, a spokesperson for Senator Graham said: "Republicans do not want a $4 trillion tax hike—which is what would happen if the Democrats had their way and the 2017 tax cuts expired." They also referenced past support from Democrats for the notion that the Senate Budget Committee Chairman has the power to establish the baseline, citing former Chairman Bernie Sanders' 2022 remark that "the Budget Committee, through its Chair, makes the call on questions of numbers." Sanders is an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. Experts have said that this new "Byrd Bath"—as it has been referred to by some on Capitol Hill—could establish a new precedent regarding budget reconciliation and the avoidance of filibusters by those in power in the future. "The budget process established in 1974 and reinforced by rules and precedents since then was intended to allow a simple majority to pass a budget as long as the contents of a budget measure were limited to budget-related spending and tax provisions," Steve Smith, professor of politics at Arizona State University, told Newsweek. "Playing partisan games with the budget process to set aside the 10-year budget period or use it for nonbudget purposes is contrary to the plain language of the Budget Act and the Byrd rules adopted by the Senate," he added. "It is a precedent that will get repeated over and over again." Michael Ettlinger, a political adviser who previously worked with the Biden-Harris campaign, said, "If the Republican's new accounting method becomes the norm, it will be far easier to pass deficit increasing legislation in the Senate with a simple majority vote—limiting the impact of the filibuster." Ettlinger, who is currently a senior fellow at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), noted that nothing would then stop Democrats from employing the same precedents to bypass the filibuster in future bills. "If the Democrats reclaim the Senate they will have the opportunity to undermine the filibuster as the Republicans have done," he told Newsweek. "It's their choice." Democratic Senator Rubén Gallego, reiterated this argument, posting to X: "There is no filibuster if the Senate [Republicans] do this and when Dems take power there is no reason why we should not use reconciliation to pass immigration reform." What People Are Saying Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, in a statement released Sunday, said: "The only way for Republicans to pass this horribly destructive bill, which is based on budget math as fake as Donald Trump's tan, was to go nuclear and hide it behind a bunch of procedural jargon. We're now operating in a world where the filibuster applies to Democrats but not to Republicans, and that's simply unsustainable given the triage that'll be required whenever the Trump era finally ends." Steve Smith, professor of politics at Arizona State University, told Newsweek: "If a small Senate majority can put anything in a budget measure or ignore the ten-year budget window, then nothing is left for regular legislation that is subject to a filibuster. It represents a "get-it-while-you-can" partisanship that Republicans have adopted since [Mitch] McConnell became leader that, step-by-step, has undermined longstanding Senate norms." Republican Senator and Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham, speaking on the Senate floor on Monday, said: "I'm not the first chairman to change a baseline for different reasons." "The budget Chairman, under [Section] 312, sets the baseline," Graham continued. "This has been acknowledged by Republicans and Democrats." What Happens Next? Debate over President Trump's megabill has now reached the final stages. A "vote-a-rama" on the bill—a marathon session during which lawmakers may introduce amendments to a reconciliation package—kicked off in the Senate on Monday morning. Should the bill pass a Senate vote, expected this week, it will then be sent back down to the House for approval. On Friday, Trump said that his preferred deadline of July 4 was not the "end all," but later said via Truth Social that the House of Representatives "must be ready" to send the bill to his desk by this date.
San Francisco Chronicle
18 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
US Rep. Dusty Johnson announces he's entering race to become South Dakota governor
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — South Dakota's lone member of the U.S. House, Republican Dusty Johnson, announced Monday that he will run for governor next year, potentially facing off against the incumbent governor. 'We have challenges, but our state has the foundation, the work ethic and the values we need to become even better,' he said at a Sioux Falls hotel, citing priorities of cutting property taxes, combating drugs and addiction and making college and tech schools more affordable. Johnson has served as South Dakota's only congressman since 2019, succeeding Kristi Noem's congressional tenure, and has taken moderate stances during his time in Washington. He has supported antitrust legislation and opposed the Respect for Marriage Act, which codified the Supreme Court's federal recognition of gay marriage. He will have served eight years in the House at the end of his current term. He sometimes joined a minority of Republicans in voting against President Donald Trump, including when he voted to override Trump's veto of a measure that revoked his declaration of an emergency at the southern border. He was later one of 35 House Republicans who voted to establish a commission to investigate the Jan. 6 Capitol riots. 'The U.S. House can be frustrating, but let's be honest, being governor of South Dakota is going to be frustrating sometimes, too,' Johnson said. 'That's just the nature of the beast.' 'This is not an easy area to serve,' he said. 'Our country, our state, we face real problems.' He told supporters that U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson and President Donald Trump look to him 'to help bridge the divide of a rowdy and colorful Republican House.' Now the 48-year-old aims to become the first elected governor since Noem, who used her time in Pierre to build a national profile and draw attention to the small-population Midwest state. Noem has since become Trump's secretary of Homeland Security, leaving her position in January which was filled by the current governor, Larry Rhoden. Johnson is entering what could be a crowded Republican primary next June, competing against state Rep. Jon Hansen, an Aberdeen businessman who championed a landowner movement against a carbon capture pipeline. Johnson may also be challenged by Rhoden, though the latter has not yet announced a gubernatorial campaign. No Democrats have announced plans to run for governor, a post that Republicans have held since 1979. Rhoden, a rancher who was Noem's lieutenant governor for six years, became governor in January during the state's legislative session. He has been traveling South Dakota visiting towns and businesses and touting economic development, with plans to visit Lemmon on Monday. South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley has announced plans to seek Johnson's congressional seat.
Newsweek
18 minutes ago
- Newsweek
DOJ Says Harvard Committed 'Violent' Civil Rights Violation
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Harvard University committed "violent violations" of U.S. civil rights and is "among the most prominent and visible breeding ground for race discrimination," according to a new letter sent Monday to the higher education institution by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ), alongside a federal interagency task force. Why It Matters The agency findings against Harvard by the joint task force could carry major implications for both federal oversight of higher education and institutional accountability, in addition to federal funding. President Donald Trump and his administration has taken aim at the prestigious university, including earlier this month signing a proclamation blocking nearly all foreign students from entering the United States to attend the Ivy League institution. Graduates gather as they attend commencement ceremony at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on May 29, 2025. Graduates gather as they attend commencement ceremony at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on May 29, 2025. RICK FRIEDMAN/AFP via Getty Images What To Know The letter, delivered jointly to Harvard President Alan Garber, states that the task force has found that the university engaged in a "violent violation" of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act due to what officials called deliberate indifference and, at times, willful participation in antisemitic harassment targeting Jewish students, faculty, and staff on campus. Federal investigators stated that unless Harvard implements significant changes immediately, the Ivy League school risks losing all federal financial privileges, potentially jeopardizing its access to research grants and other U.S. government resources. The probe, led by the HHS Office for Civil Rights, concluded that the university's response to antisemitic incidents constituted both neglect and active complicity, violating statutory protections against discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. Citing the Supreme Court's opinion in Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard (2023), federal officials alleged that Harvard remains "among the most prominent and visible breeding grounds for race discrimination." The investigation concluded that Harvard's failure to adequately protect Jewish students reflects broader, systemic issues within the institution. The HHS notice warned that continued federal funding for Harvard may violate U.S. law unless the university addresses these issues decisively. The joint letter argued, "Any institution that refuses to meet its duties under federal law may not receive a wide range of federal privileges," underscoring the possibility that Harvard—if found noncompliant—could lose critical federal funding and grants. Officials said that the situation at Harvard represents not simply a failure to address specific incidents, but a structural climate that has allowed antisemitism to persist, prompting government intervention to uphold civil rights standards. The letter was signed by senior officials from DOJ, the General Services Administration, HHS, and the Department of Education. Harvard's Response Harvard University, in a statement provided to Newsweek following the issuance of the letter, called the institution "far from indifferent on this issue" of antisemitism and "strongly disagrees with the government's findings." "Antisemitism is a serious problem and no matter the context, it is unacceptable," the statement says. "Harvard has taken substantive, proactive steps to address the root causes of antisemitism in its community. "In responding to the government's investigation, Harvard not only shared its comprehensive and retrospective Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias Report but also outlined the ways that it has strengthened policies, disciplined those who violate them, encouraged civil discourse, and promoted open, respectful dialogue." It added that the university "has made significant strides to combat bigotry, hate and bias," and that it is not alone in confronting the ongoing challenge. Harvard's summary of actions and commitments, per its own Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias, outlined multiple initiatives currently being undertaken. Some include strengthening academic and residential life and including more Jewish student representation; supporting belonging and promoting respectful dialogue; and updating campus use rules and other procedures. The letter claimed Harvard did not dispute the factual findings. The officials argued that the university's "inaction in the face of these civil rights violations is a clear example of the demographic hierarchy that has taken hold of the University." Details of the Investigation and Findings The HHS Office for Civil Rights found that Jewish and Israeli students at Harvard reported a climate of bias, harassment, and fear. The official notice outlined that "the majority of Jewish students reported experiencing negative bias or discrimination on campus, while a quarter felt physically unsafe." Specific incidents included assaults, being spit on, and students hiding their kippahs or Jewish identity out of fear. In addition, antisemitic symbols and imagery were widely circulated at Harvard, including images depicting a dollar sign inside a Star of David and stickers showing an Israeli flag altered with a swastika. Campus protests extended beyond peaceful assembly, with the task force citing demonstrations that, according to the agencies, "included calls for genocide and murder and denied Jewish and Israeli students access to campus spaces." The campus experienced a "multiweek encampment" at its center, purportedly instilling fear and disrupting academic life for Jewish and Israeli students. Disciplinary actions for those involved in these encampments and protests were described in the notice as "lax and inconsistent," with none of the charged students facing suspension and some university leadership criticizing the process as "not fair" and "not right." Potential Consequences for Harvard The notice specified that Harvard may "continue to operate free of federal privileges," but with the clear implication that all U.S. taxpayer funding—including research grants and student aid—could be withdrawn. The joint task force said the intervention was driven not only by documented harm to individuals, but by the historic dangers of ignoring antisemitism, invoking the Holocaust as a historic warning. Calls for Immediate Reform One in four American adults now exhibiting prejudice toward Jewish people and skepticism about antisemitism—an increase of 26 million people compared to 18 months ago—according a study released in May by the Foundation to Combat Antisemitism. "The enclosed document serves to focus Harvard on the need for meaningful and immediate reform and fulfill the requirement under law that Americans cease funding discriminatory institutions," the letter read. "Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard's relationship with the federal government." What People Are Saying Roz Rothstein, co-founder and CEO of StandWithUs, an international nonpartisan education organization that supports Israel and fights antisemitism, to Newsweek: "We are encouraged that DOJ and OCR utilized Harvard's own Antisemitism Task Force report to determine that Harvard is in violation of Title VI and issued an actual finding of violation. "This is necessary for any further action by the federal government, including withholding of funding, and a welcome development in the enforcement of Title VI. We look forward to seeing what steps Harvard's administration will take next to bring itself into compliance with federal law and finally make its campus one where Jewish and Israeli students not only find physical safety but equal protection under the law." Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant attorney general for civil rights at DOJ, stated in the letter: "Harvard's inaction in the face of these civil rights violations is a clear example of the demographic hierarchy that has taken hold of the University. Equal defense of the law demands that all groups, regardless of race or national origin, are protected." The letter further stated, "That legacy of discrimination persists with Harvard's continued anti-Semitism." Josh Gruenbaum, commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service, U.S. General Services Administration, joined the co-signatories warning of immediate consequences: "Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard's relationship with the federal government." What Happens Next Harvard University now faces a deadline to take actions requested by the task for or risk losing all federal funding, as outlined in the notice. Federal agencies have indicated that unless "meaningful and immediate reform" is demonstrated, enforcement actions—which could include cutting off federal research grants and support—will proceed. Continued monitoring and potential further government action are expected as the situation develops.
