Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Friday, December 29, 2017

Piyasena Gamage's Son Demands STF Security In Less Than 24 Hours After Father Taking Oaths As State Minister

Piyasena Gamage's Son Demands STF Security In Less Than 24 Hours After Father Taking Oaths As State Minister
Asian Mirror
December 29, 2017
Law and Order State Minister Piyasena Gamage's son, Randima Gamage has demanded security from the Police Special Task Force (STF), Asian Mirror learns. 
The request has been made in less than 24 hours after Piyasena Gamage taking oaths as the State Minister for Law and Order. 
Randima Gamage is a member of the Southern Provincial Council. Informed Police sources said no other Provincial Councilor has received security from the Police Special Task Force. 
Piyasena Gamage, who lost the last Parliamentary election, was reappointed to Parliament after Geetha Kumarasinghe lost her seat following a Supreme Court verdict. 
President Sirisena appointed Gamage the State Minister of Law and Order on Thursday morning.

SLFP Victim of a power struggle between two men

Never in the history have we witnessed a strange relationship like the one between the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) led by President Maithripala Sirisena and the SLFP faction led by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa. It is unclear whether they are friends or foes. At times they challenge each other, while attempting to unite at another.

2017-12-29 
The existence of two factions of the SLFP is not a matter of policy differences. It is merely a power struggle between two leaders – Maithripala Sirisena and Mahinda Rajapaksa – and a few of their close acolytes. There cannot be policy differences between the two factions when there are no such differences even between the two main parties in the country- the SLFP and the United National Party (UNP). 

There was a time when the UNP was backed by the traditional bourgeoisie groomed by British colonial rulers while the SLFP was sponsored by the capitalist class that had emerged mainly after Independence. The two parties were chanting different slogans. With the passage of time, both parties gradually won over sections of both those backers, but by 1970s, the SLFP was ardently and strictly pursuing a closed economic policy which was the main reason for the humiliating defeat of the SLFP led United Front government, headed by world’s first Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike, in 1977. The UNP then campaigned for an open economy including the creation of free trade zones. 
 It goes without saying that there are no policy differences between Maithri and Mahinda factions for them to fight over.

The open economy that was introduced by the UNP after the 1977 parliament election invited foreign investments and President J.R. Jayawardene also brought in the executive presidency and the proportional electoral system with a view to protect his economic system through a stable UNP government. However, by the time the next SLFP led government came to power in 1994, the leadership of that party too had embraced the open economy policy. Also, it has since been attempting to hang on to the executive presidency, while promising the country to scrap it. 
MS will have to expel SLFPers who contest under and campaign for SLPP

Party has divided with MS taking full control of the official SLFP

Leaders of official SLFP and SLPP having cold feet ahead of LG polls 

Hence, it is vivid that except for the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), the Frontline Socialist Party (FSP) and several other small political parties, all others follow similar policies, despite those parties adopting, at times, different strategies to implement them. Therefore, it goes without saying that there are no policy differences between Maithri and Mahinda factions for them to fight over. 

It all began with SLFP General Secretary Maithripala Sirisena breaking ranks with the then President Mahinda Rajapaksa over premiership being denied to him. He successfully shrouded his defection from Rajapaksa with democratic slogans such as ‘good governance’ and Rajapaksa had also given him enough ammunition for it with his high-handed activities and mass-scale corruption. Also, he successfully challenged Rajapaksa at the last presidential election. 
It all began with SLFP General Secretary Maithripala Sirisena breaking ranks with the then President Mahinda Rajapaksa over premiership being denied to him
Even then, the SLFP was united under the leadership of Rajapaksa, despite a small group of party men joined hands with Sirisena. It was Rajapaksa or his close aides who paved the way for the division of the party by handing over the chairmanship of the SLFP to Sirisena which he never laid claim to. They could have, with their majority power in the party’s central committee, expelled Sirisena for contesting the presidential election under another party, or changed the party constitution which provided for a member elected to the country’s presidency to take over party chairmanship. 
When President Sirisena struggled to rein in the Rajapaksa loyalists in his efforts to sustain his party leadership during the last three years, many people in the civil society who supported him at the presidential election argued that he shouldn’t have accepted the party chairmanship. However, Sirisena had been much prudent than them. The results of the general election in August 2015 would have been different had Rajapaksa controlled the party all by himself. And the country in turn would have been different by now had the Rajapaksa led SLFP won that election. President Sirisena could avert that situation using the SLFP chairmanship. 

After the presidential election, the country witnessed a strange situation where the SLFP chairman was running the government with the party’s arch-rival, the United National Party (UNP), while the majority of party members worked against his government; first with Rajapaksa’s blessings and then with his active participation. The situation came to a head when the party chairman demoralised the supporters with various statements and was instrumental in defeating the very party at the general election in August 2015. 
Now, the party has clearly divided with President Sirisena having taken full control of the official SLFP and gradually relieving Rajapaksa loyalists of party organiser posts while Rajapaksa with his group floating a borrowed party, Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), as their own. However, the local government elections, scheduled to be held on February 10, are going to be crucial as it will be the first test of strength for both groups as well as the UNP. 

With the elections fast approaching, the leaders of both the official SLFP and SLPP seem to have got cold feet. In spite of the fact that SLPP is confident that a majority of grassroots level membership of the SLFP is still with Rajapaksa, it fears a trend of erosion in its vote base towards the next presidential or parliamentary election, in the event of the official SLFP with its shrewd leadership winning a considerable number of local government bodies this time. It also fears the UNP would capitalise on SLFP infighting to win the February elections. 
On the other hand, the president and his SLFP fear they would be pushed to the third position at the LG polls and seem to engineer defections from other parties including the UNP, its partner in governance. It was Wimal Weerawansa’s National Freedom Front (NFF) that suffered a blow in the process with three prominent leaders of it including its Deputy Leader Weerakumara Dissanayake and National Organiser Piyasiri Wijenayake joining hands with the president. 

Whatever the results of the upcoming elections may be, President Sirisena will have to expel all SLFP leaders including Rajapaksa who contested under and campaigned for the SLPP as his party constitution provided for, although he too did the same at the last presidential election. He probably will resort to such drastic measures only if the official SLFP wins a considerable number of local government bodies and that will split the real SLFP right down the middle. The reality is that there is no political goal or specific policies towards it. The party and its gullible membership have been taken hostage by two men engaged in a do-or-die power struggle. 

Sri Lanka’s relations with Japan set to acquire a strategic dimension


logoSaturday, 30 December 2017

The visit of the Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono to Sri Lanka on 5 January is going to be short – just a day. But it is of enormous significance for both Japan and Sri Lanka.

That Japan decided to send a Foreign Minister after a 15-year gap indicates a new awakening, and a new thrust, in Japan’s foreign policy vis-à-vis Sri Lanka and the Indian Ocean Region in general.

Facing an economic and strategic challenge from an emergent China in East, South East and South Asia, Japan feels that it can no longer take its economic dominance in these areas for granted and rest on its oars. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, whose forceful re-orientation of Japan’s foreign policy got popular sanction in this year’s elections, is expected to pursue a multi-dimensional and forward foreign policy in East, South East and South Asia.

Given the already existing links between Japan and the US on the one hand, and Japan and the South Asian region on the other, Abe is keen to establish a strategic link between the Indian and Pacific Oceans with US, India and Australian support. Hence the evolution of a new concept, that of the Indo-Pacific Region, with a new organisation to safeguard its security interest called the “Quad”.

According to Admiral Dr. Jayanath Colombage, a Sri Lankan expert on maritime security, Japan sees Sri Lanka not just as a country where it can sell its products and assist in economic development but as a “strategic asset” in its cold war with pushy and domineering China. Very importantly, Japan feels that it is welcome in Sri Lanka, given the history of mutually-beneficial and fruitful relations.

Japan has not forgotten that while the winning side in World War II was baying for its blood in the late 1940s, it was a Sri Lankan leader, J.R. Jayewardene, who called for compassion for the defeated country and stressed the need for reconciliation rather than revenge. Since then Japan-Sri Lanka relations have rested on mutual respect and understanding rather than confrontation. This makes Sri Lankans view Japan as a “benign” power whose aid comes with no strings attached.

While the Sri Lankan polity has had reservations about the intentions of India and the US, because of a history of interference in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka, it has had no reservations about Japan which has scrupulously avoided interference.

Even during the 2002-2004 peace process, in which Japan was a key participant in addition to the US and EU, it tried to build and consolidate peace with economic development schemes rather than with political prescriptions.

Throughout his mission in Sri Lanka, Japan’s Special Peace Envoy, Yasushi Akashi, scrupulously avoided antagonising the Sri Lankan Government. He respected its sensitivities, unlike the West, which had a political agenda to pursue.

Japan was Sri Lanka’s top most aid giver till recently when China took over. From 1965 to date, Japan has given aid (concessional loans, grants, and technical assistance) to the tune of Rs. 1,628 billion. This may not be a big amount, but all of it has gone into socially relevant projects which touch the common man, especially persons belonging to vulnerable sections and those in the backward regions. Japanese assistance has also been non-controversial as the projects are not massive with huge financial outlays.

Current projects include the Bandaranaike International Airport development scheme; improvement of electricity generation and distribution; rehabilitation of the Kilinochchi water supply system; construction of a research and training complex in Jaffna University’s Agriculture Faculty; demining in the war-affected Northern Province; the Kelani river bridge project; measures to prevent congestion in the megapolis which is being planned; and capacity building through provision for training of Sri Lankan functionaries.

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe has a plan to develop the Trincomalee harbour and its environs with the help of Japan, Singapore and India. According to Adm. Colombage, the Sri Lankan Government is keen that Japan joins India in proposing and executing projects in Sri Lanka to ensure their smooth passage through the Sri Lankan polity.

However, Japan-Sri Lanka trade is nothing much to shout about. Japan accounted for 3.8% of Sri Lanka’s total trade in 2016 and it absorbed 1.9% of Sri Lanka’s total exports.

In 2016, Japan was the Sri Lanka’s ninth export destination preceded by USA, UK, India, Germany, Italy, Belgium, UAE and the Netherlands and fifth largest import source preceded by China, India, UAE and Singapore.

In 2016, Sri Lanka’s exports to Japan was dominated by apparel (22%), tea (20%), fish (7%), coir textile fibre (7%), insulated cables (3%), table and kitchenware (3%). Sri Lanka’s imports from Japan were mainly motor vehicles and transport equipment (56%), medical or surgical equipment (5%), Self-propelled mechanical shovels, excavators and shovel loaders (3%) as well as parts of motor vehicles (2%)

From 2006 to 2014, Japan’s imports from Sri Lanka continued to expand, but it declined in both 2015 and 2016. The major reduction was due to the decline in crustaceans exports (-70%) to Japan.

While trade between Sri Lanka and Japan needs to be expanded and diversified, the Abe Government in Japan is currently focusing on the expansion and strengthening of its security links with South Asian countries, including Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka is strategically located in the Indian Ocean with all East-West shipping routes passing by the island country. Maritime security is something a trading nation like Japan is acutely concerned about. It feels that Sri Lanka can play a critical role in ensuring it.

India, the US and Australia have formed the “Quad” to ensure navigational security in the Indo-Pacific region. And as part of it, Sri Lanka has been made the “lead country” to work out a maritime security scheme for the Indian Ocean region, Adm. Colombage said.

Japan is interested in aiding Sri Lanka protect its coastline. According to Adm. Colombage in 2016, Japan granted Rs. 2.4 billion to Sri Lanka for implementation of the Maritime Safety Capability Improvement Project. This grant aid will be utilised for procurement of two 30-metre patrol vessels, including construction of vessels, sea transportation from Japan to Sri Lanka, and familiarisation training for coast guard personnel.

These two vessels will certainly enhance the organic capabilities of Sri Lanka Coat Guard in discharging its duties. Until now the SLCG has totally depended on seconded vessels provided by the Sri Lanka Navy (SLN), other than having a few small boats of its own. This project is coordinated by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA).

In early 2017, the SLCG also placed an order for the construction of two 85-metre Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPV) with the Colombo Dockyard Ltd. (CDL) to enhance its capabilities in deep sea surveillance. This project too will be undertaken by a loan provided by the Japanese Government. These two OPVs will have the capability to launch and recovery of helicopters and small utility boats at sea. These two ships, when completed, will be the biggest ships of the SLCG and will enhance its capability to a higher level.



Dozens wounded as thousands of Palestinians protest against Trump


Anti-Trump protests continue for a third week across the Gaza Strip and West Bank cities
Palestinians run from Israeli live fire near Nahal Oz military base to the east of Shuja'iyya on the border of Gaza Strip on 29 December (Mohammed Asad/MEE)
Friday 29 December 2017
At least 56 Palestinians were wounded by Israeli gunfire in the West Bank and Gaza on Friday as thousands protested in a fresh "day of rage" over US President Donald Trump's controversial recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
Israeli forces also hit the Gaza Strip with tank fire and air strikes after rockets from the Palestinian enclave targeted a southern community, the army and Palestinian sources said.
Israeli troops opened fire during clashes in several parts of the coastal territory, wounding 40 people, Gaza health ministry spokesman Ashraf al-Qudra said. Four were in a serious condition.
The Israeli army said 2,000 protesters had thrown stones and Molotov cocktails at soldiers on the Israeli side of a barrier with the Palestinian territory. 
Most of those injured in Gaza were along the border to the east of Shuja'iyya neighbourhood, where protesters got very close to the Israeli security fence.
Palestinians across the West Bank cities of Nablus, Bethlehem, Jerusalem and Hebron also protested on Friday. Israeli soldiers responded with live fire, tear gas and rubber-coated bullets.
In Jerusalem, almost 40,000 Palestinians prayed at the Al-Aqsa mosque. 
Earlier, the Israeli military spokesman said that tanks and aerial fire targeted Hamas positions, after militants fired rockets from the Gaza Strip into Israel.
The army, according to the spokesman, intercepted two of the rockets while the third struck a building in Nahal Oz kibbutz causing damage. No casualties were reported by the Israeli police.
Sirens in Israeli kibbutzes around the Gaza Strip interrupted a solidarity event held for Shaul Aaron, the Israeli soldier taken by Hamas in July 2014, during Israel's war on Gaza.
Mothers of Palestinian prisoners protested to the west of Nahal Oz kibbutz, where the solidarity event happened, to demand their sons release from the Israeli prisons.
On Aaron's birthday, Hamas on Friday placed a large billboard in Al-Saraya, a square in Gaza City, with a message that read: "As long as our heroes don't see the light, this prisoner [Aaron] will not see the light."
Trump outraged Palestinians and sparked anger in the Middle East and among world powers with his Jerusalem declaration on 6 December, which reversed decades of US policy on one of the most sensitive issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Most countries regard the status of Jerusalem as a matter to be settled in an eventual Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.
A UN General Assembly resolution passed on 21 December rejected Trump’s Jerusalem declaration.

What were the top BDS victories of 2017?

The movement for Palestinian rights continues to grow across the world. (Alisdare Hickson/Flickr)

Nora Barrows-Friedman-28 December 2017

It took just four days for a world famous singer to cancel her Tel Aviv show in response to her fans’ urging her to respect the international picket line.

Lorde’s decision on Christmas Eve to pull the Tel Aviv show from her world tour – remarking that booking the gig in the first place “wasn’t the right call” – completed a successful year for the Palestinian-led boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.

2017 saw artists, performers, athletes, politicians, cultural workers, faith-based organizations, students, academics, unions and activists grow the movement for Palestinian rights.
Israel has been taking notice, of course.

Early on in the year, key Israel lobby groups admitted in a secret report – obtained and published in full by The Electronic Intifada – that they had failed to counter the Palestine solidarity movement, despite vastly increasing their spending.

The report outlined Israel’s failure to stem the “impressive growth” and “significant successes” of the BDS movement and set out strategies, endorsed by the Israeli government, aimed at reversing the deterioration in Israel’s position.

Similarly, in March, Israel’s top anti-BDS strategist conceded that the boycott Israel movement is winning – despite the Israeli government’s allocation of tens of millions of dollars and the formation of an entire governmental ministry whose sole focus is to combat BDS.

Speaking at an anti-BDS conference in New York, Israeli ambassador Danny Danon stated that “the BDS movement is still active and still strong. Every day, academic and religious groups, student unions and investment firms are all falling prey to boycott calls.”

“Our South Africa moment is nearing”

As Israel’s strategists and representatives panicked over their failures to stem the BDS tide, polls in the UKCanada and the US all showed that mainstream, public support for boycott and sanctions on Israel is growing apace.

In California, the state’s Democratic Party chapter approved a resolution – without debate – that condemned Israel’s illegal settlement activities in the occupied West Bank and the denial of entry to activists who criticize the state.

It also, notably, signaled support for organizers who engage with the BDS movement and who face expanding repression on campuses and by local, state and federal legislatures.

In the UK in December, the Labour Party’s shadow development minister Kate Osamor, a strong ally of opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn, tweeted her explicit approval of BDS.

Over the summer, the High Court in London ruled that the Conservative government acted unlawfully in trying to prevent local councils in the UK from divesting from firms involved in Israel’s military occupation, dealing a blow to Israel’s representatives seeking to criminalize the BDS movement.
Meanwhile, in the face of Israel’s overt attempts to silence him and crush the popularity of BDS, Omar Barghouti, the co-founder of the BDS movement, urged people around the world to increase boycott campaignsas the best way to show support for him and for the Palestinian people.
Barghouti won the Gandhi Peace Award in April for his work as a human rights defender. He had been subjected by Israel to a travel ban and open threats by that state’s top ministers last year.

In March, Barghouti praised a landmark report published by the United Nations which concluded that Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid, drawing praise from Palestinians and ire from Israel and its allies.

Barghouti said the UN report was a sign for Palestinians that “our South Africa moment is nearing,” adding that the report was “a stark indicator that Israel’s apartheid is destined to end, as South Africa’s did.”

He remarked that the report “may well be the very first beam of light that ushers the dawn of sanctions against Israel’s regime of occupation, settler-colonialism and apartheid.”

Here are some of the other victories of the BDS movement in 2017, as reported by The Electronic Intifada.

Athletes, writers, chefs and artists ditched Israel

In February, professional US football players pulled out of a propaganda tour to Israel, with Seattle Seahawks player Michael Bennett announcing he would “not be used” by Israel’s government to whitewash its violations of Palestinian rights.

“I want to be a ‘voice for the voiceless,’” Bennett added, “and I cannot do that by going on this kind of trip to Israel.”

In August, nine international artists pulled out of the Pop-Kultur festival in Germany because it accepted funding from the Israeli embassy. Palestinian campaigners said the “eloquent statements from the artists stand in stark contrast to the festival’s crude attempts to falsely portray the Palestinian boycott call as directed at individual Israeli artists, shrewdly omitting the fact that the protests were clearly aimed at the Israeli government involvement.”

German media also joined in the smears, giving a platform to false accusations the boycott was an “anti-Semitic” move by “participants from various Arab nations.” But the pro-Israel spin was ably confronted by German Jewish and Israeli activists, who fully backed the boycott.

Over the summer, a group of filmmakers, artists and presenters canceled their scheduled appearances at TLVFest, Israel’s premier LGBTQ film festival in Tel Aviv, following appeals by queer Palestinian activists and boycott supporters to withdraw.

The high-profile cancellations in support of the BDS campaign prompted The Jerusalem Post to admit that while the festival “has been around for more than a decade, it has never faced a campaign this successful against it.”

Later in the fall, some of the world’s top chefs pulled out of Round Tables, an Israeli government-sponsored propaganda initiative that uses international cuisine to gloss over Israel’s image.

“The Round Tables festival is taking place while the Israeli military and Israeli settlers illegally living on stolen Palestinian land attack Palestinians during their annual olive harvest,” said Zaid Shoaibi, from PACBI, the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel.

And the literary group PEN America quietly revealed that it was no longer accepting funds from the Israeli government for its annual World Voices festival, following appeals from more than 250 high-profile writers, poets and publishers.

The group had come under heavy criticism for using funds from the Israeli government, which jails Palestinian journalists and writers in Israel and the occupied West Bank for their work.

BDS endorsed by cities, churches, political groups and unions

Norway’s largest and most influential trade union organization called for a full boycott of Israel in May, just days after the Norwegian municipality of Lillehammer passed a resolution to boycott Israeli settlement goods.

Lillehammer became the third city in Norway to call for a settlement boycott, following Trondheim and Tromsø.

The city council of Barcelona voted to uphold the right to boycott Israel in April, while condemning Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land, calling for an end to the Gaza blockade and ensuring that the city’s public procurement policies exclude companies that profit from Israel’s human rights abuses.

In July, the 95,000-member strong Mennonite Church USA joined a growing number of Christian denominations that have taken action to support Palestinian human rights over the last few years.
In a resolution approved by 98 percent of delegates at its Florida convention, the church voted to condemn Israel’s military occupation and to support divestment from companies that profit from violations of Palestinian rights.

On 7 July, the World Communion of Reformed Churches called on the more than 80 million people in its member churches worldwide to examine their investments related to the situation in Palestine.
A month later, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) overwhelmingly voted to endorse the BDS call.

“Just as we answered the call to boycott South Africa during apartheid, we stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people,” the DSA deputy national director stated.

The largest democratic socialist organization in the United States with more than 25,000 members, DSA has seen its membership quadruple with the resurgence of left-wing politics in the US and Europe, particularly since the 2016 presidential campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders.

In the UK, Jewish members of the Labour Party founded a new group – Jewish Voice for Labour – that presents a challenge to an existing Israel lobby group positioning itself as the representative of Jewish members of the party.

Jewish Voice for Labour’s founding document upholds “the right of supporters of justice for Palestinians to engage in solidarity activities, such as boycott, divestment and sanctions.”
Also in the UK, the country’s largest union for school teachers launched a boycott of HP over the technology giant’s role in the Israeli occupation.

G4S was further ostracized

The world’s largest private security company, G4S, continued to face heavy financial losses around the world as its profiteering from human rights abuses came under further scrutiny.

G4S has helped operate Israeli prisons where Palestinians are tortured and has managed juvenile prisons, detention and deportation facilities in the US and UK.

The firm has also been implicated in labor and human rights abuses from Africa to the offshore facilities where Australia detains refugees and asylum seekers.

An Ecuadorian research institute announced in February that it had dropped its contract with G4S after meeting with activists.

Following a campaign led by Jordan BDS, UN Women in Jordan dropped its G4S contract in October, becoming the fifth UN agency in Jordan to do so.

And the transportation board of Sacramento, California, moved to dump its security contract with G4S following work by campaigners to highlight the company’s role in rights abuses in Palestine and the US.

Last year, G4S announced that it was dropping a slate of controversial businesses, including its Israel subsidiary and juvenile detention services in the US.

The Financial Times described the move as an attempt by G4S to distance itself from “reputationally damaging work.”

But campaigners around the world vowed to maintain pressure on the company as long as it remains complicit in violations of Palestinian human rights.

Students fought

South Africa’s Tshwane University of Technology announced in December that it will respect the call for the boycott of Israeli institutions complicit in the violation and denial of Palestinian rights.

“As a progressive university in a democratic South Africa, we want to affirm that TUT will not sign any agreements or enter into scientific partnerships with any Israeli organization or institution until such time that Israel ends its illegal occupation of Palestinian territory,” the university stated, citing a decision taken by its governing council in November.

And college students across the US continued to mobilize for Palestinian rights despite increasing repression by administrations and outside Israel lobby groups.

Divestment resolutions were passed at Tufts University in Boston, the University of MichiganCalifornia State University - Long Beach and at De Anza Community College in California.

A resolution passed by students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison voted unanimously to back a broad-based resolution calling on the university to drop its ties to companies that profit from mass incarceration, theft of indigenous land, police violence, the US-Mexico border wall, economic injustices against people of color and Israel’s human rights abuses in Palestine.

In New York, students at Fordham University brought violations of their rights to organize and assemble to court, challenging the decision by an administrator to ban Students for Justice in Palestine.

And in the UK, the annual, global Israeli Apartheid Week – a series of events meant to raise awareness of Israel’s policies of apartheid – took place on more than 30 university campuses across the country despite a government backed campaign of repression.

Anti-BDS legislation was challenged

Two federal lawsuits were filed by the American Civil Liberties Union which challenge the basic constitutionality of state and federal anti-BDS laws.

Israel lobby groups have accelerated their promotion of legislation aimed at chilling free speech and blacklisting advocates for Palestinian rights. By December, 23 states passed anti-BDS laws.

There is also a bill pending in Congress – the Israel Anti-Boycott Act – that could impose large fines and long prison sentences on companies and their personnel if they are deemed to be complying with a boycott on Israel or its settlements called for by an international organization.

A lawsuit was filed against the state of Kansas in October on behalf of a public high school math teacher, Esther Koontz, who participates in the consumer boycott of Israeli goods.

Koontz is a member of the Mennonite Church USA, which passed a resolution in July in support of divestment from companies that profit from violations of Palestinian rights.

Another lawsuit was filed against the state of Arizona in December on behalf of an attorney who contracts with the government to provide legal advice to incarcerated persons, according to the ACLU. He participates in the boycott of Israel.

But in Oregon, three separate bills impugning the BDS movement failed to get a hearing, following sustained pressure by human rights activists and faith leaders across the state.

The bills were backed by Jewish communal groups that organize nationwide efforts to combat the movement for Palestinian rights.

Activists said that the failure of the bills should encourage campaigners fighting back against similar anti-BDS measures in state legislatures and the US Congress.

Editor’s note: Additions to this post have been made since its initial publication.
The juiciest details, documents and unparalleled access we shared with you that interrupted mainstream coverage of the region

A detainee at a centre that MEE gained access to in Zawiya, Libya (MEE/Alessio Romenzi)
Friday 29 December 2017
Just ahead of US President Donald Trump's decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital, Western diplomats and Palestinian officials gave us details about an 'ultimate deal' that a US team is finalising for Israeli-Palestinian peace.
The Saudis, who have been briefed on the plan and pledged to make $20m payments each month to the Palestinian Authority to make it work, encouraged Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to accept the plan.

2017 Was the Year of False Promise in the Fight Against Populism

The populist wave seems like it may have crested. The data proves otherwise.

This map shows the change in election results of 102 populist parties across 39 European countries between 2000 and 2017. (European Populism: Trends, Threads, and Future Prospects)
This map shows the change in election results of 102 populist parties across 39 European countries between 2000 and 2017. (European Populism: Trends, Threads, and Future Prospects) 
No automatic alt text available.
BY , -
DECEMBER 29, 2017, 9:35 AM Populist movements have been on the rise for at least two decades, but anxiety about the phenomenon reached its high point a year ago. That should be no surprise. 2016 was the year in which populism went primetime: Over the course of a few disorienting months, the people of Britain voted to leave the European Union and the people of the United States made Donald Trump their president. Most commentators around the world assumed that 2017 would bring even more shocking news. The world as we knew it might be about to end.

A year on, it is clear that such fears were exaggerated. In the first round of the French presidential election, populists on the left and the right took about half of the vote. But when Emanuel Macron faced the far-right Marine Le Pen in the second round, he won comfortably. Similarly, in Germany, a far-right populist party entered the Bundestag for the first time since World War II. But moderate parties retain a clear majority in parliament, and when the next government is finally constituted, it will likely remain as moderate and milquetoast as the last.

It would be tempting to draw the wrong lesson from this — and indeed some commentators already have. “The populist wave has crested, soon to abate,” Charles Krauthammer summarised the new conventional wisdom in an op-ed this past April. After a scary couple of years, things are seemingly returning to normal.

We draw a different set of lessons from the same story. Traumatic though they were, it never made sense to look at the events of 2016 and conclude that populists would henceforth win every single election, or that they would manage to destroy longstanding political systems as soon as they gained power. And so it never made sense to measure the populists’ progress by a binary yardstick, with everything short of sensational wins implying that populists were already being forced into a hasty retreat.

To get a clear view of whether populism is growing or subsiding, we should therefore be comparing their current strength to their performance in previous years. To do this, we set out to construct a comprehensive data set of the electoral performance of European populist movements since 2000.
First, a brief definition. For the purposes of our study, we didn’t treat populism as a deep ideology, but rather a logic of political organization, one that sharply distinguishes between supporters, who are portrayed as the whole of the legitimate people, and opponents, who are cast as the people’s illegitimate enemies. To be populist, in other words, a movement simply has to claim to represent the true will of a unified people against domestic elites, foreign migrants, or ethnic, religious, or sexual minorities.

The picture that emerges is very clear: Populist movements had been gradually gaining votes well before the shock year of 2016. And they have continued to do so since. While the average vote share for European populist parties was 9.6 percent in 2000 and 17.2 percent in 2008, for example, it is now 24.6 percent.

The clearest way of understanding the rapid advance of the populists is to chart their progress on a time-series map. A first glance reveals the basic story: a blue wave has slowly conquered the continent. But a closer look reveals three key — and hitherto underappreciated — features of the populist rise.

First, populism is now the predominant form of government in a huge, populous, and strategically crucial part of Central Europe. It is now possible to drive from the Baltic Sea all the way to the Aegean without once leaving a country ruled by a populist.

The implications are enormous. Far from being a small, insurgent force, populism has proved capable of capturing power in a large number of countries. As a result, hopes of a democratic Europe that extends from Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic — containing all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe celebrated by Winston Churchill in his Iron Curtain speech — has been dashed: Barely three decades after these parts of Europe were liberated from Soviet domination, democracy is now fighting for its very survival in Budapest and Prague, in Belgrade and Warsaw.

Second, right-wing populists have not yet led the government in a single Western European country. It would be easy to conclude that their influence remains limited in much of the continent. But that would be a mistake: As our map shows, right-wing populists are now part of the government in many countries, from Greece to Austria to Norway.

What’s more, the influence of the populists is rapidly growing even in countries where they are not in power: To stave off the competition from the extremes, traditionally moderate parties in countries including France and Austria have recently lurched to the right. Indeed, when members of France’s Les Republicains were faced with a choice between traditional conservatives like Florence Portelli and Maël de Cala or a much more radical candidates by the name of Laurent Wauquiez, they chose the man who likes to make sly allusions to theories according to which a mass of immigrants threatens to replace the white race. Similarly, Austria’s conservative People’s Party has quickly radicalised under the new leadership of Sebastian Kurz, and so it does not come as a surprise that the new Kurz-led government, which includes a heavy presence from the populist Freedom Party, has already announced plans to confiscate all money from arriving asylum seekers and to purge left-wing voices within the country’s public broadcaster.

Finally, it is a mistake to focus exclusively on right-wing populism. Just as a populist belt, mostly composed of right-leaning parties, has already covered much of Central Europe, so too a second populist belt, mostly composed of left-leaning parties, may one day conquer much of Southern Europe. Many of these movements have grown strong in debtor countries as a result of the euro crisis and a decade of economic stagnation. But while much of their anger is directed at austerity policies that really have done a lot of damage, some of these parties are also proving to be increasingly open to xenophobic appeals, or have started to undermine the independence of the media.
Our data makes one thing abundantly clear: the populist rise started well before 2016 — or even 2008.

The political transformations we are currently seeing are a long-term trend, and the only plausible explanation for that must be that they are caused by structural drivers which have been at play for a long time. While debate about their exact identity persists, it seems likely that they include economic insecurity; a rebellion against immigration and the notion of a multi-ethnic society; and the greater ease with which extreme voices can make themselves heard in an age of social media.

Past trends, of course, are never a sure predictor of the future. Perhaps those structural drivers are about to exhaust themselves, making it easier for moderate parties to regain the initiative in the years to come. But to think that the populist wave has crested just because the record performances of Germany’s far-right AfD and France’s Marine Le Pen were not enough to catapult them into the very heart of government is deeply misguided; unless politicians manage to identify and counteract the structural drivers of populism, populism is very unlikely to disappear of its own accord.

Looking ahead to 2018, we shouldn’t expect any dramatic upsets like Trump or Brexit. But opinion polls suggest that populists will continue to make significant inroads in countries with upcoming elections, including Italy, Belgium, and Estonia. The populist wave has not yet crested. Nor is it about to bury us quite yet. But unless we act now, it will keep garnering strength in the years to come.

White House looks to make internal changes amid worries of a tough year ahead

President Trump speaks to first responders at West Palm Beach Fire Rescue on Wednesday in Florida. (Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images)

 December 28 at 7:30 PM 


 While President Trump spent the past week at his Mar-a-Lago Club — golfing, tweeting, relaxing with family and talking to old friends — White House officials have been in quiet talks about revamping the West Wing operation and filling open posts ahead of what could be a politically difficult 2018.

The discussions come at a critical time for the administration. The president ended his first turbulent year in office with a major legislative victory — the Republican tax plan — but also suffered an embarrassing setback when the Republican candidate he endorsed in Alabama’s Senate race suffered an upset loss following allegations of sexual misconduct.

The unexpected defeat in the deep-red state narrowed the Republicans’ already tissue-thin majority in the Senate and underscored the challenges the White House faces as Republicans head into the 2018 midterm elections with a president facing approval ratings in the 30s.

The proposed changes, to be largely overseen by White House chief of staff John F. Kelly, mark another effort by the retired four-star general to further streamline and professionalize the White House operation to ensure the chaos of the administration’s inaugural year does not follow it into 2018.

The plan is to have Johnny DeStefano — a White House aide and Washington insider who worked for John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) when he was House Speaker — temporarily oversee four West Wing operations: the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Office of Political Affairs, the Office of Presidential Personnel and the Office of Public Liaison, a White House official confirmed Thursday.


In his first month as President Trump’s chief of staff, John F. Kelly has brought discipline to the White House, sometimes to the frustration of Trump. 
DeStefano is likely to soon get help with this broad portfolio, which was first reported by Axios, with additional staffers coming in to run the offices but still possibly reporting to him, several people with knowledge of the move said.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, we worked together as a team to deliver for the American people and we look forward to building off this momentum in 2018,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement.

The White House is working to hire a top political strategist who would probably oversee Bill Stepien, the political director. Stepien has come under growing criticism that he is not up to task of overseeing the White House’s political shop after a string of missteps in Alabama’s Senate race.

Trump first endorsed Sen. Luther Strange (R-Ala.), who lost his party’s primary, and then endorsed Roy Moore, a controversial former judge accused of sexual misconduct toward young women, who lost the general election — all of which proved embarrassing for the president.

Even Stepien’s allies privately say he is in a difficult situation, arguing he is a smart man who is not fully empowered to run his shop unilaterally.

In recent weeks, the president has heard from a growing number of outside advisers, confidants and members of Congress, warning that the White House is poorly positioned to handle the tough 2018 political landscape. In a particularly tense meeting in the Oval Office last week that spilled into public view, Corey Lewandowski — a political consultant who served as Trump’s first 2016 campaign manager — vented his concern that the president was being ill served by everyone from his political operation to the Republican National Committee.

And this week in Palm Beach, Trump has been minimally staffed, especially around Christmas — a period during which he called outside friends and advisers, receiving another round of warnings about the upcoming political cycle.

The president has been informed by aides and friends that if he loses the House in 2018, not only would Democrats almost certainly begin impeachment proceedings against him but his entire legislative agenda would be imperiled, making any 2020 reelection bid far more challenging.

How nervous Trump is about the upcoming year is unclear. Several friends who have seen him at Mar-a-Lago in recent days described him as relaxed and smiling, cocooned in his manicured villa and seeming without a political worry.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), the chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, said he is concerned about his party’s 2018 prospects. “I’m a numbers guy — we could lose as many as 15 to 18 seats in the House,” he said. “There are a lot of people who are suggesting a lot more than that.”

But, Meadows added, he believes the president is looking in earnest to improve his political operation. “We certainly support the president’s effort to put forth a real political team to make sure the message is out there,” Meadows said.

One challenge is the West Wing does not have a shortlist of candidates to help with the political operation — a function, in part, of Kelly’s lack of deep political roots. Administration officials also said they were simply in the early stages of the process.

Marc Short, the director of legislative affairs, had informally suggested Ward Baker for the spot, according to two people with knowledge of the pitch. But Baker, a longtime Republican operative, has his detractors within the White House. He did not respond to requests for comment.

Under the proposed new structure, Short, who has a close relationship with Kelly, will not report to DeStefano, while continuing to oversee his own operation.

Short — who has national political experience from when he oversaw the political network of billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch — has taken on a heightened, if unofficial, political role behind the scenes. White House officials said other aides have similarly taken on more political responsibilities. Short declined to comment.

“Policy is politics — his policy team probably gets an A,” Meadows said. “His policy team has probably been more interactive and engaged in the Senate and the House than really what I saw during the Obama administration.”

The role of communications director role in the Office of Public Liaison has been empty since earlier this month, when Kelly forced out Omarosa Manigault Newman — a former reality-television star who appeared on “The Apprentice,” which Trump hosted. The White House is working to fill the post, probably with an internal candidate.

 Another department likely to see some change is the Office of Cabinet Affairs, said two people with knowledge of the discussions. Inside the White House, there is frustration with the office and its head, William McGinley, amid a growing sense that Cabinet secretaries are not doing a good job promoting the president’s agenda and that there is poor communication between the Cabinet office and the rest of the West Wing.

A White House official said there were no plans to move McGinley out of his position.
The disorganization surrounding coordination between agencies and the White House is something Kelly knows well from his time as homeland security secretary and something he hopes to remedy in the coming year. Several months ago, the president implemented meetings with his full Cabinet every two weeks in an effort to improve communication.

White House officials also pointed to how the West Wing worked with the Treasury Department, the Commerce Department and other relevant agencies to help pass the Republican tax plan, as an example of how the administration’s effort to advance its priorities has become more cohesive.
 Kelly’s restructuring also comes as the White House is expecting a slew of departures — some welcome, others less so — around the one-year mark of Trump’s presidency.

Deputy national security adviser Dina Powell recently informed the White House she plans to leave in early 2018. Powell is leaving the administration on good terms and may continue to help advise on Middle East policy from the outside.

But other departures are more fraught. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who has clashed with the president and is widely disliked in the West Wing, is also expected to leave early next year, with the White House already readying a plan for his exit.

Gary Cohn, director of the National Economic Council, could also soon depart. Once considered to be Trump’s top choice to lead the Federal Reserve, he provoked the president’s fury after he publicly criticized Trump in the wake of the Charlottesville white-supremacist rally that left one woman dead.
Cohn was one of the public faces of the tax-bill effort, and following its successful passage earlier this month he made comments to colleagues that led them to believe his exit is imminent. Cohn, however, recently said at a public forum that he expects to be working in the White House three months from now and is focused on infrastructure, including overseeing a big meeting on the topic the first week of January.