Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

President Joe Biden has told Israel that the US would withhold the supply of offensive weapons if it moved ahead with a full invasion of Rafah in southern Gaza, in his starkest warning yet over its conduct of the war against Hamas.

Biden’s comments, in an interview with CNN during a trip to Wisconsin, came after Washington had already paused a shipment of munitions heading to Israel, amid concern over its operations in Rafah, where more than 1mn Palestinian civilians have been sheltering.

The US has opposed Israel’s plans for an assault on Rafah, hoping instead to help broker a deal between Israel and Hamas to free hostages held in Gaza and reach a ceasefire lasting at least six weeks.

But with the fate of those talks still uncertain, Biden publicly warned Israel that Washington would curtail its supply of weapons depending on its conduct in Rafah — a step that his administration had been unwilling to take until now.

“Civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs and other ways in which they go after population centres,” Biden told CNN.

“I made it clear that if they go into Rafah — they haven’t gone in Rafah yet — if they go into Rafah, I’m not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities, that deal with that problem.”

Lloyd Austin, the US defence secretary, told a congressional hearing earlier on Wednesday that Washington had “paused one shipment of high payload munitions” to Israel over concerns about its looming ground operation in Rafah.

“We’re going to continue to do what’s necessary to ensure that Israel has the means to defend itself,” he said. “But that said we are currently reviewing some near-term security assistance shipments in the context of unfolding events in Rafah.” 

Israel sent ground troops into Rafah on Monday night, seizing the main border crossing between Gaza and Egypt. It has threatened to expand the operation in a city it calls Hamas’s last stronghold.

The pause in arms supplies marks the first known time that the US has held up a potential weapons delivery since Hamas attacked Israel on October 7 and the Jewish state launched its retaliatory offensive against the militant group in Gaza.

The US decided to withhold the shipment last week after discussions over how Israel would meet the humanitarian needs of civilians in Rafah did not fully satisfy Washington’s concerns.

Israel’s military tried to play down any rift, with Israel Defense Forces spokesman Daniel Hagari saying the allies would resolve any disagreements “behind closed doors”.

In addition to the shipment paused last week, Washington was “reviewing others,” said Matthew Miller, the state department spokesperson. “We remain committed to Israel’s defence, but in the context of the unfolding situation in Rafah, it is a place where we have very serious concerns, and that’s why we take the actions we take.”

A senior US official said the process that led to the shipment pause began in April, with the Pentagon ultimately withholding 1,800 2,000-pound bombs and 1,700 500-pound bombs.

The use of some of the most destructive US-supplied bombs in Israel’s arsenal has come under intense international scrutiny since their use in heavily populated areas can lead to unforeseen civilian casualties. The US military has used 2,000-pound bombs only sparingly in its recent military campaigns in the region.

“We are especially focused on the end-use of the 2,000-pound bombs and the impact they could have in dense urban settings, as we have seen in other parts of Gaza,” the senior US official said. “We have not made a final determination on how to proceed with this shipment.”

The Biden administration had also informally delayed shipments of Joint Direct Attack Munition kits and small-diameter bombs, according to people familiar with the matter. The official said these cases remained under review.

“For certain other cases at the state department, including JDAM kits, we are continuing the review,” the official said. “None of these cases involve imminent transfers — they are about future transfers.”

David Banks, chancellor of New York City Public Schools, testified at a House Education Committee hearing on antisemitism on Wednesday. He was joined by Karla Silvestre, president of the Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland, Emerson Sykes, staff attorney with the ACLU, and Enikia Ford Morthel, superintendent of the Berkeley Unified School District in California.

Jacquelyn Martin/AP

hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jacquelyn Martin/AP

David Banks, chancellor of New York City Public Schools, testified at a House Education Committee hearing on antisemitism on Wednesday. He was joined by Karla Silvestre, president of the Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland, Emerson Sykes, staff attorney with the ACLU, and Enikia Ford Morthel, superintendent of the Berkeley Unified School District in California.

Jacquelyn Martin/AP

On Wednesday, Republican lawmakers expanded their fight over antisemitism in education, with mixed results.

Members of the House Education Committee questioned leaders from three K-12 public school districts over the handling of recent incidents that some lawmakers say have left Jewish students feeling unwelcome and unsafe.

Republicans, who control the House and called the hearing, were clearly hoping for the kind of headline moments they’ve scored in similar hearings with elite college presidents. In one of those hearings, presidents struggled to answer questions about antisemitism. Another hearing, focused on Columbia University, helped spark a wave of protests on campuses around the country.

But Wednesday’s testimony offered few surprises in comparison, as the K-12 school leaders held their ground in answering Republican questions.

All three education leaders – from New York City Public Schools, Berkeley Unified School District in California, and Montgomery County Public Schools in a Maryland, suburb of Washington, D.C. – represent districts that lean politically liberal.

As on many college campuses, all three have also seen real tension between students, parents and staff over how to talk about Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel and Israel’s retaliatory incursion into Gaza. That includes isolated examples in each school system of students and, in some cases, staff saying and doing things that could be considered antisemitic.

The hearing began with a lightning round of yes-or-no questions about the killing of Israelis by Hamas on Oct. 7. Then Republican lawmakers turned their attention to David Banks, chancellor of New York City Public Schools, the largest school district in the country.

Republican Lisa McClain of Michigan asked Banks whether drawing swastikas and the statements “Death to Israel” and “Kill the Jews” were antisemitic, and the chancellor was unwavering in his answers, saying they were.

New York City got the toughest grilling, much of it around the district’s handling of a November protest at a high school in which students targeted a teacher who had declared her support for Israel on social media. Banks said multiple students were suspended and the school’s principal was removed.

Over and over, Republican lawmakers called for accountability and for teachers and staff who are involved in or enabled antisemitic incidents in schools to be fired. At one point, in a slip of the tongue, a lawmaker asked if any students had been fired; another asked, perhaps thinking he was still in a higher ed hearing, if any professors had been fired.

In maybe the most heated exchange of the hearing, Republican Elise Stefanik of New York appeared to think she had caught Banks in a lie, claiming he had said that he’d fired the principal of that New York City high school. In fact, he’d said the principal was “removed” and “moved,” meaning reassigned to another role.

Ultimately, Banks tried to make the point that teachers and staff are entitled to due process.

For their part, Democrats used the hearing to question their Republican colleagues’ political motives.

In her opening statement, Democrat Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon said, “Many of my colleagues claim to care about the rise of antisemitism in this country, but when white supremacists marched in Charlottesville, Va., with burning torches and chanting, ‘Jews will not replace us,’ the president at the time, Donald Trump, said there were very fine people on both sides.”

Bonamici went on to list a number of things Trump has said or done that could be considered antisemitic. She invited the Republicans at the hearing to disavow those statements by Trump. None did.

Throughout the hearing, Banks and the other educators repeatedly returned to what they considered one of the most important challenges they face right now: developing effective classroom lessons to help teach students to reject antisemitism and hate of any kind.

Stay informed with free updates

Simply sign up to the War in Ukraine myFT Digest — delivered directly to your inbox.

Ukraine is to start recruiting prisoners to fight against Russia under a new law designed to bolster its frontline forces, including with men convicted of murder or fraud.

Using a tactic Moscow has relied on to fill ranks since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Kyiv would begin to offer certain convicts a path to freedom if they are willing to join a combat unit.

The bill, approved on Wednesday by the Ukrainian parliament, is the latest in a series of measures aimed at mobilising more men to replace casualties and soldiers exhausted from long tours on the frontline. It still requires the signature of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to enter into force.

The drive to enlist convicts is expected to result in several thousand new recruits from a prison population of about 20,000, according to David Arakhamia, a senior lawmaker. That is a fraction of the hundreds of thousands of fresh soldiers Ukraine says it needs this year to hold back Moscow’s advancing forces.

The Russian army and militias deployed in Ukraine have routinely drawn manpower from prisons, irrespective of the crimes recruits have committed. Examples of convicts reoffending have been numerous, while in service or after returning to Russia, further damaging the reputation of the Russian armed forces.

Though Ukraine’s decision to turn to prisons is borne out of the same manpower needs, Kyiv has included stricter eligibility conditions to distance itself from Russia’s more reckless prison recruitment practices.

Ineligible convicts include serial murderers, drug traffickers and those guilty of sexual violence, corruption and national security crimes, according to Olena Shuliak, an MP from Zelenskyy’s party.

Men convicted of a single murder can sign up but would be automatically excluded if also found guilty of rape. Former high-ranking politicians and ministers who are serving prison terms are also not allowed to enlist.

Shuliak acknowledged that the law had the potential to “cause a violent reaction from society”, but said that it had been crafted together with the ministries of defence and justice, as well as the armed forces.

“It is only possible to withstand the conditions of a total war against an enemy with more resources by consolidating all [our] forces. This draft law is about our struggle and preservation of Ukrainian statehood,” she wrote on social media.

Ukrainian prisoners who volunteer must undergo a physical and mental health test and have at least three years remaining of their sentence. They will serve in special units for as long as the war continues or until they are demobilised.

Failure to complete their military service or attempting to defect would be punishable by five to 10 years in prison. If they commit another crime while serving, the remainder of their previous sentence will be added on top.