Demonstrators across some 90 cities have denounced the legal change, which they see as laying the groundwork for full conscription being reinstated
Thousands of demonstrators have marched in cities across Germany to protest Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s plan to overhaul the country’s military service system, accusing the government of laying the groundwork for forced mobilization.
On Friday, the German parliament approved changes to the military-service law expanding recruitment and giving Berlin tools to reactivate conscription if volunteer numbers fall short.
Rallies took place in around 90 cities – including Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, and Cologne – both before and after the vote. Footage showed protesters chanting anti-war slogans and carrying banners reading “No to conscription,”“We will not be cannon fodder” and “Your war – without us.” Protesters slammed the reform as “recruitment of death” and urged investment in education and welfare instead of weapons.
One protester told Ruptly she feared her teenage sons would soon be drafted, while another said: “Merz should go to the front himself and risk his own life.” Some linked the reform to Germany’s broader military buildup, warning that Berlin is preparing for a war against Russia. Several speakers argued the law – and the rearmament push overall – serves the interests of major arms companies rather than the public.
Germany abolished compulsory military service in 2011 and moved to an all-volunteer force. But amid a NATO-driven military, Berlin now seeks to expand the Bundeswehr, citing a worsening security environment. Last month, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius claimed Russia could attack a NATO member “as early as 2028,” using the warning to press for sweeping rearmament.
Under the new Military Service Modernization Act, all 18-year-old men must register for potential service by completing a questionnaire and undergoing medical screening starting in 2026. The reform stops short of reinstating full conscription but creates the legal basis for draft call-ups via lottery if voluntary recruitment falls short.
Critics say Berlin is relying on fear-based scenarios to force through unpopular measures and justify massive military spending. Younger Germans are especially opposed: a recent Forsa survey for Stern found that 63% of adults aged 18 to 29 reject compulsory service.
Russia has dismissed claims that it plans to attack NATO as “nonsense,” calling them an excuse for inflated military budgets and a way to distract the public from domestic problems.
Donald Trump’s son-in-law could play a key role in drafting a peace deal, Yury Ushakov has said
US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, could play a key role in drafting a Ukraine peace deal, top Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov has said following high-stakes Russia-US talks in Moscow.
Kushner joined US special envoy Steve Witkoff in negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin this week which lasted five hours, and which centered on a US-backed proposal to end the Ukraine conflict.
The initial 28-point version of the plan, which was leaked to the media last month, required Kiev to relinquish parts of Russia’s Donbass region still under Ukrainian control, pledge not to join NATO, and cut the size of its armed forces.
Moscow has since said it accepts some elements of the US proposal but rejects others, adding that a final compromise has not been reached yet and that “much work” remains on the text.
In an interview with Russian journalist Pavel Zarubin on Friday, Ushakov described the atmosphere at the Kremlin meeting as “constructive and friendly,” noting that Putin has now met with Witkoff six times. “They understand each other almost without words,” he said.
Kushner’s participation, Ushakov noted, “turned out to be very timely.”
“He added an element of systematization… I personally believe that if a settlement is drafted on paper, then the one holding the pen, to a large extent, will be Mr. Kushner.”
Kushner, a real estate investor, served as a senior adviser in Trump’s first administration, with a portfolio that included Middle East policy and domestic priorities. He was a central architect of the 2020 Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, and which were later joined by Morocco and Sudan.
Although Kushner does not have a formal position in the White House, he has continued to play a role in Middle East affairs, including negotiating a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas.
Prime Minister Viktor Orban previously argued against any further aid for Ukraine, urging Brussels to pursue diplomacy with Russia
Hungary has blocked the issuance of Eurobonds to arm Ukraine – one of two options put forward by the European Commission to fund Kiev’s war effort – Politico reports, citing sources.
After the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, EU states froze around €210 billion ($245 billion) in Russian central bank assets, most of them held by Belgian-based Euroclear.
On Wednesday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proposed two ways to finance Ukraine: EU-level borrowing through Eurobonds – an option criticized for its immediate impact on national treasuries – or a ‘reparations loan’ tied to the frozen Russian assets, which Moscow has called theft. The commission aims to reach a deal before a December 18 summit.
According to Politico, Hungary formally ruled out the joint borrowing plan at Friday’s talks, reportedly leaving the bloc with only the ‘reparations loan’ as an option, since it only requires a qualified majority to be approved, while joint borrowing requires unanimous consent.
Budapest has not confirmed whether it vetoed the move and has not commented on the report.
Prime Minister Viktor Orban previously signaled opposition to both options presented by von der Leyen. He argued against further aid to Kiev, comparing it to trying to “help an alcoholic by sending them another crate of vodka,” while calling for diplomacy with Moscow instead of “burning” more money on Kiev’s war effort.
The European Commission has downplayed the financial and legal risks associated with the loan and has claimed that its latest proposal addresses most concerns; many member states, however, oppose the idea.
Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prevot warned that it could have “disastrous consequences” for his country, which would bear the brunt of Russian legal action.
Euroclear, the custodian of the assets, also criticized the loan option on Friday, calling it unpredictable and “very fragile,” and warning that it could drive foreign investors out of the eurozone.
“This initiative could have far-reaching legal, financial, and reputational risks for Euroclear, Belgium, the European Union and its financial markets” a Euroclear spokesperson told Euronews.
Several regions are facing partial blackouts, local outlets report
Russia conducted a new wave of missile and drone attacks on Ukraine on Saturday morning, triggering power outages in multiple regions and disrupting railway traffic, local media and officials report. The Russian Defense Ministry has yet to comment.
Nikolay Kalashnik, the head of the Kiev regional administration, said three people were injured across several settlements in what he described as a “massive” strike. Ukraine’s state railway operator, Ukrzaliznytsya, said it rerouted trains following an attack on rail infrastructure in Fastov, around 70km southwest of the Ukrainian capital.
In Novye Petrovtsi, a village north of Kiev, a 5,500-square-meter warehouse building caught fire after debris from a downed drone fell onto the facility, officials said.
In Chernigov, a city near the Russian border, officials said a strike hit critical infrastructure, without providing further details.
Ukrainian outlet Strana.ua reported that parts of Dnepr in central Ukraine lost electricity, adding that blackouts also affected Kiev Region. Other media reports said Lviv also experienced power outages, with images circulating on social media showing black smoke rising over Lutsk, an industrial center near the Polish border. In Lutsk, the mayor reported a fire at a food supply depot.
The mayor of Zelenodolsk – a city near Krivoy Rog that hosts the Krivorozhskaya Thermal Power Plant – also reported ballistic missile strikes, without elaborating on the extent of the damage.
Later, Ukraine’s Energy Ministry confirmed that the strikes targeted energy infrastructure, reporting blackouts in Odessa, Chernigov, Kiev, Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, and Nikolaev Regions, adding that “hourly outage schedules are currently in effect in all regions of Ukraine.”
The overnight barrage followed a Ukrainian drone strike on a high-rise business center in Grozny. Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov condemned the attack, vowing that “the Ukrainian fascists will feel our tough response.”
“But we, unlike them, will not carry out cowardly strikes on civilian sites. Our attacks will be directed at the military terrorist facilities of the Ukrainian Nazis,” he stressed.
Russia has conducted strikes on military-related Ukrainian infrastructure for months, saying the attacks are retaliation for Kiev’s “terrorist” raids into Russia which often target critical infrastructure and residential areas. Moscow maintains that it never targets civilians.
Pavel Durov’s remarks come after Musk’s X was fined over alleged platform rule violations
The EU is unfairly targeting social media platforms that allow dissenting or critical speech, Telegram founder Pavel Durov has said.
He was responding to a 2024 post by Elon Musk, the owner of X, who claimed that the European Commission had offered the platform a secret deal to avoid fines in return for censoring certain statements. The EU fined X €120 million ($140 million) the day before.
According to Durov, the EU imposes strict and unrealistic rules on tech companies as a way to punish those that do not comply with quiet censorship demands.
“The EU imposes impossible rules so it can punish tech firms that refuse to silently censor free speech,” Durov wrote on X on Saturday.
He also referred to his detention in France last year, which he called politically motivated. He claimed that during that time, the head of France’s DGSE asked him to “ban conservative voices in Romania” ahead of an election, an allegation French officials denied. He also said intelligence agents offered help with his case if Telegram quietly removed channels tied to Moldova’s election.
Durov repeated both claims in his recent post, describing the case as “a baseless criminal investigation” followed by pressure to censor speech in Romania and Moldova.
Later on Saturday, Durov wrote: “The EU exclusively targets platforms that host inconvenient or dissenting speech (Telegram, X, TikTok…). Platforms that algorithmically silence people are left largely untouched, despite far more serious illegal content issues.”
Last year Elon Musk said the European Commission offered X “an illegal secret deal” to quietly censor content. “If we quietly censored speech without telling anyone, they would not fine us. The other platforms accepted that deal. X did not,” he wrote.
On Friday, European Commission spokesperson Tom Rainier said the EU fined X €120 million for violating the Digital Services Act. He claimed the fine was unrelated to censorship and was the first enforcement under the law. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio criticized the move on X, calling it “an attack on all American tech platforms and the American people by foreign governments.”
Durov and Musk have both faced pressure from EU regulators under the Digital Services Act (DSA), which came into force in 2023. The law requires platforms to remove illegal content quickly, though critics say it can be used to suppress lawful expression.
The Israeli PM wants to be absolved of his corruption charges; is he preparing for a clean exit or a fight with the rising opposition?
Israel’s domestic political life is boiling over. Against the backdrop of war, disputes over the limits of executive power, and a deepening crisis of trust in state institutions, the country appears to be edging toward a major political transformation. This is hardly surprising. Large-scale shifts are visible across the region and at the global level of international affairs, where older models of stability are breaking down and competition between strategies and identities is intensifying.
An additional catalyst has been the unprecedented story of the official pardon request that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu submitted to President Isaac Herzog. Seeking to halt the corruption trial against him, Netanyahu framed the move as a step that could ease social polarization and free him to focus on leading the country. The President’s Office acknowledged the extraordinary nature of the request, said it would be carefully reviewed after receiving legal opinions, and released the relevant documents, including an extensive legal brief.
A key international dimension is that in November, US President Donald Trump sent Herzog a letter urging him to grant Netanyahu a full pardon, arguing that the court proceedings distract the prime minister at a critical moment. Politically, this can be read as more than a simple gesture of support. In Washington, especially after several turbulent episodes in 2025, there may be a growing sense that Netanyahu’s status and political vulnerability have become a significant source of instability and a risk to the US approach aimed at de-escalation and a longer-term settlement in Gaza. This interpretation also surfaces in expert discussions noting that the White House has had to restrain Israel’s leadership from undermining arrangements for the sake of domestic political survival.
Viewed in the wider regional context of 2025, the US has also faced an increasingly alarming security backdrop. This includes the Israel-Iran Twelve-Day War in June, which sharply altered the strategic landscape. Analysts have also debated the autumn strike on Doha as a highly sensitive precedent for the security of US allies in the Gulf and for the credibility of American guarantees. Within this framework, the idea that Trump seeks to avoid entangling the US in new, unwanted conflicts – and therefore may see Netanyahu’s legal and political incentives as a risk factor – appears politically plausible, even if Washington’s official language remains more cautious.
Netanyahu and his coalition do not seem to be in the strongest position. The war and its political fallout, the dispute over Haredi conscription, and the approaching budget deadline are all tightening internal pressure. The 2026 budget must pass the Knesset by the end of March 2026; otherwise, the law automatically triggers a scenario leading to early elections, even though the next regular elections are already scheduled for October 2026.
Against this backdrop, opposition leader Yair Lapid is increasingly stepping into the spotlight. He is working to align himself with Israel’s traditional foreign-policy partners and with more moderate domestic allies in an effort to pull the country out of growing isolation and to secure a base of support should early elections take place in 2026. This is also reflected in the way Lapid systematically uses the parliamentary platform and the international agenda, including pressure on the government over the framework of the US plan for Gaza – an area where Netanyahu’s coalition has often preferred to avoid a public display of unity.
Speaking about the regime’s growing international isolation, Lapid said Israel continues to endure the most serious political crisis in its history, and that the current situation reflects a loss of control on the part of the present government. According to media reports, he also linked this trend to the expanding international recognition of Palestine and to the consequences of economic and investment pressure, citing decisions by major players such as Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, which in 2025 began and later widened the exclusion of a number of Israeli companies and banks from its portfolio on ethical grounds. At home, the negative backdrop for Netanyahu is reinforced by polling data. In October, Israel’s Channel 12 recorded a significant share of respondents (52%) who do not want to see him as a candidate in the next election.
Lapid has also been gaining points on the foreign-policy front, presenting himself as a pragmatic figure and a relatively comfortable option both for Israelis weary of constant turbulence and for external partners in need of a predictable interlocutor. His recent visit to London illustrates this clearly. Not all details of the trip are publicly available, but what has been disclosed suggests that he is deliberately building a European reserve of legitimacy and support in anticipation of a possible political watershed in 2026.
Reports indicate that during a meeting with Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper and National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell, the parties discussed the possibility of restarting negotiations on a UK-Israel trade agreement, which London suspended in May 2025 amid the war in Gaza and radical statements by several Israeli ministers. Israeli sources also confirmed that Lapid urged the UK to lift existing restrictions on arms exports to Israel and raised the idea of a new configuration for managing Gaza, in which Egypt could assume a more central role instead of Türkiye and Qatar. In his view, this framework could open the way to additional regional agreements that would strengthen Israel’s security and economy.
It also matters that this visit took place under new leadership at the Foreign Office. Cooper took up her post after the September reshuffle, replacing David Lammy. This means that Lapid is, in effect, building ties with London’s new political team in advance, seeking to cement a reputation as a leader with whom Britain can discuss Gaza’s postwar governance, the restoration of economic links, and a broader architecture of regional de-escalation. Taken together with his contacts within the British political establishment, including a meeting with Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, this looks like a deliberate strategy to position himself as an alternative center of gravity in Israeli politics at a time when the current coalition’s standing appears to be weakening.
Lapid is also mindful of Israel’s principal ally, the US, and is clearly working to build a functional relationship with the Trump administration by emphasizing constructive engagement and political responsibility. A telling example is his initiative to bring a Knesset vote on a measure supporting Trump’s 20-point peace plan for Gaza. Lapid publicly noted that US government representatives had approached him regarding the vote and that the opposition would back the plan. In doing so, he sent Washington a clear signal that he is prepared to serve as a reliable, predictable partner who will not sabotage an American initiative for the sake of domestic political gamesmanship.
At the same time, the move served an internal purpose. In effect, it created a situation in which Netanyahu and his coalition would find it harder to distance themselves from Trump’s plan and more difficult to explain to the American side any lack of a unified Israeli political front. Lapid even framed this as a norm of political conduct, arguing that from time to time, the entire Knesset should behave as though there is one people with shared goals. In this approach, he appears to the White House as a convenient interlocutor – and potentially a stabilizing backstop – should the current coalition hesitate over sensitive language relating to Palestinian self-determination and the future status of statehood.
As a result, Lapid is simultaneously reaffirming loyalty to Washington’s core line while subtly highlighting the contrast with the ruling camp. This helps him strengthen his standing as a politician capable of delivering a steadier Israel-US relationship at a time when Gaza remains a central test both for regional stability and for American strategy.
Against this broader configuration, Netanyahu’s request for a pardon from President Herzog also appears politically logical. In practical terms, it can be read as an attempt to secure at least partial guarantees in case he fails to hold on to power and is forced to leave the prime minister’s office. The very fact of the appeal is unusual for a sitting head of government and is already being perceived as a crisis move with heavy domestic political repercussions.
But this by no means suggests that Netanyahu and his far-right coalition are ready to relinquish power without a fight. If anything, the opposite is true. At a moment when the opposition is gaining momentum both at home and abroad, and the American line on Gaza has become a political test of governability, the ruling camp could be motivated to search for ways to seize the initiative once again.
In this context, the northern front looks like one of the most dangerous pressure points. The ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah of November 27, 2024 formally remains in effect, yet in practice it is extremely fragile. Israel continues to strike Hezbollah targets, presenting this as necessary deterrence and as a way to prevent the group from rebuilding its military capabilities. Meanwhile, the key Israeli objective of removing the threat along the border and creating conditions for the safe return of evacuated residents remains unfulfilled.
A separate political marker is the statements of US special envoy Tom Barrack, who warned that if Beirut does not make progress on dismantling Hezbollah’s military capability, Israel may act unilaterally. In another formulation, he implied that Lebanon is approaching its last window of opportunity to reach understandings. This is all the more pointed given that the deadline for Hezbollah’s disarmament already passed on December 1.
Even if these remarks are viewed as a tool of pressure, they heighten anxiety around the scenario of a new major round of war. The Lebanese authorities have publicly said they do not want a return to conflict, which in itself underscores how close the region is to a dangerous threshold.
For this reason, the claim that a new war with Lebanon is highly likely should be treated as a strong analytical hypothesis rather than a foregone conclusion. Yet the logic of escalation is clearly visible. The incomplete implementation of post-conflict arrangements, disagreements over what exactly constitutes disarmament, growing mutual distrust, and Israel’s internal political struggle all create an environment in which a large-scale strike could be used as a means of projecting strength and bringing the domestic agenda back under control.
The Iran file is not closed either. The Iran-Israel war in June 2025 became a turning point and sharply raised the risk of renewed open conflict. Think tanks have noted that after this episode, both sides appear to remain locked into preparations for the next crisis, while the absence of durable de-escalation mechanisms only increases the probability of another round.
Taken together, this suggests that Israel is indeed living through an unprecedented political crisis. Society is deeply polarized, the confrontation between government and opposition has hardened, and the role of external actors is more visible than ever. The US, EU and UK, Israel’s traditional allies, increasingly act not merely as observers but as meaningful factors shaping domestic political dynamics.
The overall picture is therefore one of acute tension. Netanyahu is trying to hedge personal and political risk through the legal track. The opposition is expanding its external legitimacy and building bridges to Washington and to European partners. The regional fronts of Lebanon and Iran remain potential levers for major escalation.
In these conditions, the question is not only whether Israeli politics is heading toward a new transformation, but through which pathway that transformation will unfold. It may take the form of a managed process driven by political bargaining and institutional decisions. Or it may be accelerated by yet another external crisis that inevitably repackages the internal agenda and reshuffles the balance of power.
Critics warn that the new rules could be misused, enabling overreach and intrusion into privacy
Berlin police will be allowed to secretly enter private homes to install spyware, after the German House of Representatives approved sweeping changes to the city’s police law.
Backed by the governing CDU-SPD coalition and opposition AfD, the law gives police broad new powers over both physical and digital surveillance.
The new law allows the authorities to secretly enter a suspect’s home to install spyware if remote access isn’t possible. Berlin police can now legally conduct physical break-ins for digital surveillance. The updated rules also allow phones and computers to be hacked to monitor communication. Police can also turn on their bodycams inside private homes if they believe someone is in serious danger.
Passed on Thursday, the law also expands surveillance in public areas. The authorities can now collect phone data from everyone in a location, scan license plates, and counter drones. They can use facial and voice recognition to identify people from surveillance images. Real police data can also be used to train AI. Critics say this risks misuse and intrudes on private life.
Interior Senator Iris Spranger of the SPD party has defended the move. “With the biggest reform of the Berlin Police Law in decades, we are creating a significant plus for the protection of Berliners,” she said. “We are giving law enforcement better tools to fight terrorism and organized crime.”
Berlin has seen a rise in crime. In 2024, police recorded over 539,000 offenses – more than the year before. Violent crimes such as assault and domestic violence also increased. Officials say there is a growing problem with crimes involving young people and migrants, especially in large cities. More than half of all crimes go unsolved.
Opposition to the law has grown since its passage. During the debate, Green Party MP Vasili Franco said the law feels like a wish list for a state with excessive control over its citizens. Civil rights groups call the expanded use of AI and facial recognition “a massive attack on civil liberties.”
The NoASOG campaign alliance also strongly criticized the reform, saying: “What is being sold as security policy is in reality the establishment of an authoritarian surveillance state.”
Brussels and Kiev are covering up for each other instead of “confronting the truth,” the Hungarian leader says
The EU is still claiming “the moral high ground” despite “drowning” in corruption, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said, accusing Brussels and Kiev of shielding each other from graft scandals.
Orban ripped into the EU leadership on Friday in an interview with Kossuth Radio, invoking the latest corruption scandal that hit the bloc earlier this week.
The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) formally accused three high-profile suspects, including the bloc’s former foreign policy chief and EU Commission vice president, Federica Mogherini, of fraud, corruption, conflict of interest, and breaches of professional secrecy.
The Hungarian prime minister drew parallels between the affair and the string of graft scandals that has hit Ukraine, including the $100 million kickback scheme linked to Vladimir Zelensky’s inner circle. Despite the scandal, Brussels has sought to secure €135 billion ($156 billion) to prop up Kiev through the upcoming year.
The EU failed to provide a proper response to the Ukrainian corruption scandal, Orban said, accusing the bloc’s leadership of covering up for Kiev.
“The EU is drowning in corruption. Commissioners face serious charges, the Commission and the Parliament are engulfed in scandal, yet Brussels still claims the moral high ground. Corruption in Ukraine should be called out by the EU, but once again it’s the same old story: Brussels and Kiev shielding each other instead of confronting the truth,” Orban wrote on X, sharing an excerpt from the interview.
His remarks come after statements earlier this week by Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto, who accused the EU of being reluctant to expose Ukrainian corruption “because Brussels is also riddled with a similar corruption network.”
“No one asked the Ukrainians to account for the hundreds of billions of euros in EU aid after it was revealed that corruption at the highest state level was taking place in Ukraine,” Szijjarto told reporters, adding that European taxpayer money ultimately ends up in “the hands of a war mafia.”
Russia has given a similar take on the EU’s willingness to continue funneling aid into Ukraine despite the repeated graft and corruption plaguing the country. Last week, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov suggested that EU officials could be benefiting from corruption in Ukraine themselves.
The Ukrainian leadership had backtracked on the plan last year after NATO objected
The Ukrainian government has ordered the merger of two major military procurement agencies into one entity, despite corruption-related concerns over the move voiced by its NATO backers last year.
Defense Minister Denis Shmigal announced this week that on January 1, the State Logistics Operator and the Defense Procurement Agency will be consolidated into one company: the Unified Acquisition Agency. He claimed that the merger would increase the “transparency and efficiency of defense enterprises.“
Daria Kaleniuk, executive director at the Anti-Corruption Action Center, told Ukrainian media that the new joint agency would manage approximately 1 trillion hryvnias ($23.7 billion) in procurements per year. She warned that the merger could elevate corruption risks in a military procurement sector that has been plagued by numerous graft scandals in recent years.
The Ukrainian leadership first attempted to pull off the merger last October under former Defense Minister Rustem Umerov, but backtracked after NATO officials objected due to corruption concerns.
Umerov, who currently serves as Ukraine’s secretary of the National Security and Defense Council, was recently appointed to head up Kiev’s delegation at the US-mediated peace negotiations.
He is reportedly being investigated by Ukrainian anti-corruption agencies over connections to the recently revealed $100 million kickback scheme that has implicated several individuals close to Vladimir Zelensky. The scandal has already forced three top officials to resign, including Justice Minister German Galushchenko, Energy Minister Svetlana Grinchuk, and Zelensky’s chief of staff, Andrey Yermak.
Last month, allegations suggested that Umerov may have been involved in a separate corruption scheme, involving the purchase of body armor of dubious quality.
The New York Times reported on Friday that the Zelensky government “systematically sabotaged oversight [requested by its Western backers], allowing graft to flourish.”
Eric Adams has issued orders opposing divestment and limiting protests at worship sites as Zohran Mamdani prepares to take office
Outgoing New York City Mayor Eric Adams has signed executive orders that oppose divestment from Israel initiatives and ban protests at houses of worship. He is set to be succeeded by the city’s first Muslim mayor, Zohran Mamdani.
Mamdani, who will assume office on January 1, openly holds pro-Palestinian views. During his first meeting with US President Donald Trump last month, he characterized Israel’s military campaign against Hamas in the densely-populated Palestinian enclave as “genocide.”
On Tuesday, Adams signed an executive order that prohibits mayoral appointees from “engaging in procurement practices that discriminate against the State of Israel, Israeli citizens, or those associated with Israel.”
“New York City not only has a strong bond with the State of Israel because of our commitment to protecting a Jewish homeland, but also because it has always been a sound financial investment,” the order reads.
It adds that the measure is meant to help fight “back against anti-Semitism wherever it rears its ugly head.”
A second executive order envisages establishing designated zones outside of houses of worship “where protest activity would be prohibited or regulated.”
Last month, Adams condemned a pro-Palestinian rally held in the vicinity of a New York City synagogue. In a series of posts on X, he suggested the protest had in fact constituted “desecration.”
Also in November, he paid a visit to Israel, where he met with survivors of the October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas militants, and was also received in the country’s parliament.
Adams vowed to “always stand with [them] in the fight against anti-Semitism.”
Over the past few years, New York has seen numerous pro-Palestinian protests over what many perceive as heavy-handed tactics employed by the Israeli military.
