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

Saturday, February 25, 2017

01FEVER – There is a sense in which tradition (not always defensible on rational grounds) is a rite of passage for politicians as much as for schoolboys in which to “Be (Thou) Forever” means players from all walks of life partake in a sip of fun (which, if taken in the right spirit, can be harmless). However, when the liberty to drink from the well of youth entails spitting in the face of dignity, decorum, and Dhamma (allegedly), the powers that be may “Learn And Depart” to take a less philosophical view and side with the law of the land, directing police and other authorities to crack down on errant motorists or miscreants who are a threat to public well-being, health, and safety (while not incurring the displeasure of responsible traditionalists)

logoFriday, 24 February 2017

It’s that time of the year again, or almost. When God’s in His heaven, and all Bodhisattvas have attained Nirvana or are almost there. When all boys’ schools in Colombo (and almost all girls’ schools, too – perhaps) have one Big Idea on their minds – maybe. It’s known as the Big Match, and almost always comes with a plethora of symptoms commonly referred to as ‘fever’.

(For a detailed analysis from a cultural anthropology perspective – but with the writer’s tongue firmly lodged in his cheek – see http://www.ft.lk/article/398455/Match-fever-and-making-sense-of-all-this--March-madness- for an attempt by yours truly to circumscribe the circus. So I’m not reinventing that wheel in this column.)

This year, however, a Cloud Has appeared On the Horizon (CaH2a+7OH). It takes the form of some saffron-robed moralists railing against the evil of alcohol (CnH2n+1OH). The point these ethical commentators makes seems to irrefutably link the corruption of society with an ethanol-induced mayhem that the Big Match brings. As if no one else but truckers on the rampage cause traffic chaos and make inroads into public well-being, health, and safety. Methinks the venerable monks have forgotten too readily and too soon the mayhem often caused by their saffron-robed fellows at protest marches, strikes, rallies, demonstrations, and the like.

So it is not surprising that there has been no little consternation that the sasanic opprobrium this week was expressed at what was ostensibly a state-endorsed press conference (being held as it was under the aegis of the Government Information Department). It appears that not only is this elite brotherhood of clergy incensed by the moral decrepitude that schoolboy cricket entails, its offended members also have the blessings of the chief executive’s good offices with which to voice their concerns and more solidly plank their campaign. Mathata Thitha (‘Full Stop to Fully Soused’) – from a previous president’s platform – is alive and well…

Position

02I wasn’t at the press conference. But to watch the video of it doing the rounds on social media made me realise I had missed a treat by way of a moral treatise to make the ethical animals amongst us smile. Silly me, to miss a bunch of moralist bodhisattvas playing at being silly, er, persons. (Too many B-words being bandied about here…)

I was hooked from the get-go; because the venerable monk’s sense of humour is a killer (he re-baptised the OB in “old boys” to now mean “old beasts” – based on their behaviour under the influence). Soon, the deeper meaning and greater significance of his wisdom became apparent to viewers and congregants – a précis of which follows below:
  • Big matches are the bane of Buddhist schools
  • It’s all part of a conspiracy to undermine the discipline of Maha Vidyalayas (but of course!)
  • The relevant authorities are reluctant to act, so the cancer of alcoholism is proliferating right throughout the body politic
  • Based on empirical evidence, it is provable that Big Matches cannot be conducted in a decent and decorous manner which will not harm our (ancient and honourable) civilisation
  • Therefore it is incumbent on the powers that be to ban Big Matches forthwith – in the name of decorum, dignity, and Dhamma
  • In addition (in case the gravity of the argument above does not carry the day) it should be done in the name of law and order
  • School principals must take the incumbency of this upon themselves, in similar vein to mould Maha Vidyalayas cited, which have set the tone by being a Big Match-banning model and example
  • If the police and other civil authorities won’t cooperate with the heads of schools in this respect, Big Matches must be banned by the law of the land
  • It is the primary responsibility of the state guardians of Sri Lanka
  • “We say with responsibility that Big Matches are a public menace. We don’t witness this type of hooliganism on the high streets of any country in the world. It is a public mandate given to break the laws…”

Present concerns

Well, that’s put a spoke in the parade’s wheels! Strike one against custom, tradition, and the systematic ritual warfare between boys’ schools which has been a hallowed rite of passage. (As well as, admittedly, a harrying time for hassled members of the public subjected to attendant high-jinks.) It remains to be seen what action the powers that be will direct the authorities to take to curb the potential (oh, all right then – actual/physical) threats and challenges to ‘civil’ society which could – and do – ensue. Or it may well be that the divide in Government ranks – political, personal, philosophical – will pre-empt any sterner measures than the police mete out to cycle parades and trucking than has been par for the course over the years.

The President, for one, may well be ignorant of and apathetic to, the institution and nuances of Big Matches in the Big City. The Prime Minister, on the other hand, has long been well-acquainted with the hallowed traditions of the Old Beasts’ – er, Old Boys’ Tents – and, if memory serves me right, has more than once entered into the, um, spirit of the event. It is the bedrock of this ‘royalism’ and that ‘loyalism’ that has propped up populist leaders for decades.

But, ironic as it may sound, there is much to agree with – if not empathise with – in the piqued prelate’s pontificating. Of course, with the obvious exception of his outrageous conspiracy theory that it’s all part of a plot to destabilise the Dhamma. There are many things in heaven and earth – or samsara and nirvana – than are dreamt of in your philosophy, O horrified monks! But just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean everyone’s out to get you. [Unless, of course, they are. Until the proof of such an outrageous allegation shows up in real life, the court of public opinion is free to speculate that some venerable seers may be more (let’s say) visionary than pragmatists would allow for one’s mental health. Useless to argue with the prophets who know it all and will be moved by neither lever nor logic.]

Be that as it may, certain trends and truisms related to the ethos and gravamen of the venerable monks’ press conference are sufficient to make more than mere school principals sit up and take notice. 

Principals and principles

For one, that the moralistic outpouring of offended guardians of the moral law always makes good copy… but often leaves a bad taste in the mouth, and a queasy feeling in the stomach. There is a sense that something meaningful is being said. With that said, the significance of what is being said is lost in the slick of vitriol, vituperation, vapidity, with which it is said. A fonte puro pura defluit aqua… or let speakers and readers alike remember pure water flows from a pure spring.

For another, that the seemingly innocuous coupling of executive ire against social evils such as alcohol and any grouping of equally irate monks is a recipe for such Pharisaic opportunism as to make the boundary between ‘church’ and ‘state’ seem nowhere weaker than in the public square – where it must be the weakest in a secular democracy. Far too often than is healthy for a supposedly secular democracy has the dominant culture of a so-called ancient civilisation imposed itself with majoritarian chauvinism.

Far be it from us to advocate pandemonium à la cycle parades unregulated by the police, but to call for a ban on Big Matches per se because the availability of alcohol poses threats to maintaining the peace is pushing common sense too far in the direction of absurdity. For once, the subject minister seems to agree with the conventional wisdom, rather than coming down on the side of politicos bending over backwards to please the all-powerful prelates.

Then again, there is the principle of ‘risus abundant in ore stultorum’ – that laughter is abundant in the mouths of fools. In our rush to poke fun at the prelates’ pretentiousness, let the powers that be not overlook the fair points being made about the perniciousness of the right spirit for an occasion in the wrong hands. Laissez-faire, laissez-passer, can easily turn sour on the lips when the freedom to twirl one’s brolly – or beer can – in the air poses a threat to someone else’s proboscis.

There is also the hypocrisy of rants and raves which home in on the other. When judgment must begin in one’s own household. And consider the greater evils for which they and their ilk are also responsible. It won’t be the first time clergy of any stripe have railed against the ills of illicit liquor indulged irresponsibly; it won’t be the last. By the way, at least have the courtesy and civility to consider a common and concerted platform against paedophilia, with which more than one philosophy struggles, and which has become a truly pernicious evil in our country.

While the bottom line of the bodhisattvas’ bemoaning may be nauseating to many liberals and civil libertarians among my readers, it behoves us to pause a moment and ponder on the larger point the venerable monks might be making. As much as work is the curse of the drinking classes – as Wilde essayed over a century ago (not nearly as long ago as the genesis of some Big Matches) – drinking is also the bane of schoolboys unaccustomed to the heady spirit in which Big Match fever is imbibed. Been there, done that, still have the T-shirt. But let us maintain a sense of proportion about the boundaries between civil liberties and civilian responsibility before raining on anyone’s parade. Or, as the products of some erudite maha vidyalaya might say: “Sabbe sattha bhavanthu sukhi tattha.”

May all beings be happy. Even if it kills them a little in spirit. As long as no other animals are harmed in the process. 

MILLIONS CREDITED TO EX-INTELLIGENCE CHIEF MAJ. GEN. KAPILA HENDAWITHARANA’S ACCOUNT.


Image: Maj. Gen. Kapila Hendawitharana was ardent supporter of Rajapaksas.

Sri Lanka Brief25/02/2017

Retired Maj. Gen. Kapila Hendawitharana, national intelligence chief when Gotabhaya Rajapaksa was the defence secretary, has had Rs. 3.2 million credited to his Bank of Ceylon current account from across the country, a FCID investigation has revealed.

‘Ravaya’ reports that notable among them is one S.S. Kuhandan, who ran ASK cable TV in northern and eastern provinces having credited Rs. one million to Hendawitharana’s account.

Money had also been credited to his account from Jaffna, Kotahena, Akkarapattu, Thambaluvil, Nugegoda, Kollupitiya, Tiruheleli and Bambalapitiya areas.

Hendawitharana and certain others, identified as I.M.G. Kumara, Paragoda Gamage Wasantha Dias and Vajira Liyanage had withdrawn the money on several occasions.

Investigations also revealed that the Presidential Secretariat had paid Rs. 153 million, at the rate of 15,000 per month, to ASK TV to transmit Tamil news and programmes of state TV channels to France through satellite technology.

For that, owner Kuhandan had met with the then secretary to the president Lalith Weeratunga through Army intelligence member Suresh Sally.

Payments had been made, but it has not been established as to whether the programmes had been transmitted to France.

ASK TV aired state TV programmes in the northern and eastern provinces without making any payments to the state as well.

Kuhandan operated a TV channel in France too, by the name DAN TV

– Sri Lanka Mirror

In May 2015 Colombo Additional Magistrate Nishantha Peiris yesterday allowed FCID to probe all the accounts of former Intelligence Chief, Major General (Retd.) Kappila Gamini Hendawitharana who was accused of depositing money in foreign banks. In addition, all accounts of Executive Director of Dan TV, S . Kuhanathan, who is accused of making money through illegal means with Hendawitharana, will also to be be probed.Major General (Retd.) Kapila Hendawitharana.

The FCID commenced investigations on Kuhanathan after it was alleged that the Dan TV head has been depositing funds of Hendawitharana and several of his associates at financial institutions in Luxembourg from 2009.

The Additional Magistrate also ordered FCID to investigate the incident in-depth and to report the progress on 2 July.

-Asia Tribune

JVP MPs Import Six Duty Free Vehicles


Colombo Telegraph
February 24, 2017
All JVP MPs including its leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake and the COPE chairman, Sunil Handunneththi have imported brand new Toyota Hilux 4wd Diesel Double Cabs from Thailand using duty free vehicle permits which resulted in the country losing millions of rupees in revenue.
According to the custom’s declaration form, the total tax waived off for JVP Double Cabs which were imported on February 15, 2017 is approximately Rs. 30 million.
Although each MP is allowed to import a vehicle equivalent to US $ 62,500 JVP MPs have chosen to import these Double cabs each costing US $ 19, 820.
Meanwhile in the Writ application filed in the Supreme Court (SC/Writs/07/2016) against the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC), the Public Interest Rights Activist and a Lawyer Nagananda Kodituwakku argues that it had failed to perform the duty vested in it to conduct a credible investigation and prosecute those MPs who have sold their permits, despite first hand direct evidence of selling permits was made available to the CIABOC by him, demonstrating the selling of the MP tax free permits to third parties who had imported luxury vehicles and registered the vehicles in their name at the RMV despite they were not entitled to use the tax free privilege only afforded to the MPs only.
The Petitioner lawyer argues that those who hold office in the Legislature and the Executive have themselves acknowledged their obligations to the People and their duty to preserve people’s rights and privileges, so that the dignity and freedom of the citizens would be assured and a Just, Social, Economic and Cultural Order attained. But their conduct concerning the selling of permits demonstrates patent violation of their Constitutional obligations to the people, effectively nullifying the equality, fundamental rights and the doctrine of Democratic Governance enshrined in the Constitution.
The Lawyer further argues that the unlawful selling of permits clearly undermine the sovereignty in the people and betray the peoples’ trust and confidence placed in the MPs appointed or elected to the Legislature and Executive and such actions violates the law relating to corruption and hence false well within the criminal offence of corruption as defined in the Section 70 of the Bribery Act and therefore seeks the intervention of the Court that is empower to protect, vindicate and enforce the rights of the people [Article 105] of the Constitution.
We publish below the custom’s declaration forms of Anura Kumara Dissanayake, Sunil Handunneththi, Bimal Rathnayake, Nalinda Jayatissa, Vijitha Herath, Nihal Gayappaththi:
Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s custom’s declaration form:

Environmentalists clash over Wilpattu et al

Claim bid to disrupt March 1 public forum


article_image
Nakandala


by Shamindra Ferdinando- 

Alleging that Industries and Commerce Minister Rishad Bathiudeen has taken advantage of the simmering dispute over clearing of Wilpattu jungles to pursue his objectives, the Left Centre claimed that the previous Rajapaksa administration as well as the Yahapalana rulers were equally responsible for unabated destruction taking place.

Addressing the media at the Centre for Society and Religion (CSR), Maradana, on Thursday (Feb 23), Chamara Nakandala said that the issue involving Minister Bathiudeen shouldn’t be taken in isolation. Nakandala said that the previous government turned a blind eye to the massive destruction taking place.

Pointing out that all-powerful then Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapakse and nationalists, Patali Champika Ranawaka, Wimal Weerawansa and Udaya Gammanpila had done nothing to save the environment from unscrupulous elements; Nakandala said the destruction was continuing. Having served the Rajapaksa administration, Patali Champika was now a key player in the Yahapalana administration, the civil society activist said.

He alleged that the Joint Opposition hadn’t really focused on the contentious issue though it realised Sri Lanka’s future was at stake.

The environmentalist alleged that influential politicians on both sides had been cooperating with destructive elements.

The activist claimed that a section of the civil society, too, had contributed to the destructive project for various gains and participated in live television programmes in a bid to deceive the public.

Nakalanda accused some interested parties of making an attempt to disrupt a planned public forum on March 1 at the CSR to discuss the environmental issues. "We’ll not allow anyone to interfere with scheduled programme. Even those opposed to our stance are free to express their views at the March 1 meet. We are hoping to reveal what is going on in the field."

Nakandala said Gampaha District UNP MP Chathura Senaratne had been engaged in a high profile social media project to take the attention of the people away from burning issues. The NGO activist chided the Gampaha electorate for electing Senaratne at the Aug 2015 general election. Nakandala said that the Gampaha voters had revealed their mentality when they chose Upeksha Swarnamali over Karu Jayasuriya at a previous general election.

To be or not to be, living in Singapore?

I need hardly be apologetic for being Sri Lankans? There is a feeling that if we are like Singapore, we will be better off. Who knows?

by Victor Cherubim-
( February 25, 2017, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) I am perfectly happy to be Sri Lankan, but many others think otherwise. I visited Raffles Hotel some 50 years ago and of course I was enamoured by the City State Singapore. It was different then and it is vastly different now.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking Singapore’s “strict, efficient, conservative, clean and etiquette conscious” reputation, is dull and disenchanting. It continues to be fascinating and a diverse nation. It is full of colour, contrasts and at the same time full of restriction that I would find difficult to adjust living there. Yet ask any Sri Lankan today, they all want a life in Singapore?
What makes Singapore, Singapore?
Most people have heard of the discipline of Lee Kuan Yew, GCMG, Companion of Honour, SPMJU, known by his initials LKY, the first Prime Minister of Singapore who governed for three decades. Today, there is power sharing with the Chinese, Malays, and Indian nationals taking turns. Many people are aware of Singapore being cosmopolitan, contemporary and commercial. At the same time people are aware that it is actually illegal to chew gum, or spit in or out in the street. You can be fined $150 for forgetting to flush in a public washroom.
Your freedom ends where the “public convenience” begins. Litter is frowned upon with a $1000 fine or be sentenced to community service. Propping up your feet on a railway seat or even a coffee table or even patting someone on the head is a quirk never tolerated. Walking down the road not clad properly or parading in your birthday suit on the beach could result in a fine up to $2000 or up to three months in jail.
More than that, the freedom of speech which we have in overabundance in Sri Lanka perhaps, as clearly demonstrated by the acts of BBS; or having heated, angry fist fights in our “paaralamentu” or the habit of casting aspersions against individuals with emotion, is all taboo in Singapore.
“No Gifts or presents please, we are Singaporeans” is the national motto of Singapore.
It could be near impossible for even a Wimalawansa to point his forefinger at someone anywhere, not even in jail, as it will mean punishment in Singapore. Any creativity in the use of graffiti or spray painting, or acts of vandalism, with intent to destroy or damage public or perhaps even private property, will lead to criminal punishment. Does this make you think again?
What then makes Sri Lanka want to be another Singapore?
Do we really want to be Singapore or do we want to be as wealthy as Singapore?
Do we really want to sacrifice all our freedoms to be another Singapore?
Do we really want to turn our population around to comprise 76% Chinese, 15% Malay and 6 % Indian to call ourselves Singaporeans?
We are happy where we belong?
Can anyone really compare Sri Lanka with Singapore? We are proud of our heritage, we are proud of our “freedoms” we have cherished for centuries. We are a large nation, not a City State, We have nearly five times the population of Singapore. We love our power cuts, we want to chew our beetle nut, and we want to worship with all the loudspeakers blaring out every Poya Day. This makes Sri Lanka what it is? This makes the world come to us. We believe in variety, we believe in human nature, we believe in looking after our stray dogs and cows on the road. Is that not what we were taught?
I need hardly be apologetic for being Sri Lankans? There is a feeling that if we are like Singapore, we will be better off. Who knows?
Our survival is not government, but our people?
Sri Lanka has gone through some very difficult times. We have been crippled through war and civil commotion, perhaps, not fully our own fault. Perhaps, we are deeply engrained to our recent past that prevents us from “being in the present”? Our greatest asset is our people.
On a comparative basis we are warned of the consequences, on the internet:
“If Sri Lanka were your home instead of Singapore your world”
“You would be 2.7 times likely to be unemployed
Die 8.03 years sooner
Be 9.3 times more likely to be murdered
Make 89.58 % less money
Be 3.6 times more likely to die in infancy
Consume 98.35 % less oil
Spend 96.35 % less money on health care
Use 94.74 % less electricity
Be 58.18% less likely to be in prison
Have 2 times more babies.”
We don’t have to go by the above statistics which may cramp our lifestyle. Our ingenuity is boundless; let us not sell ourselves for a life of Singapore which has seen its heyday? “Let a thousand flowers bloom again”, if only we think our people will be great again? Allow us the opportunity to be Sri Lanka again?

Israeli troops clash with Palestinians marking Hebron massacre


Troops and settlers clash with Palestinians protesting on anniversary of massacre of 29 Palestinians at Hebron's Cave of the Patriarchs
Israeli soldiers fire tear gas at protesters in Hebron (MEE/Carlos Donnelly)

Friday 24 February 2017
Israeli soldiers and Jewish settlers clashed with Palestinian protesters on Friday in the occupied West Bank city of Hebron, on the anniversary of a 1994 massacre of Palestinians carried out by a far-right Jewish settler.
Soldiers fired tear gas and sound grenades to disperse the crowd as cannons doused them with stinking water, an AFP correspondent said. Jewish settlers, of whom 500 are entrenched in the centre of the city of around 200,000 Palestinians, hurled stones at the protesters.
Medics on the scene reported several cases of suffocation. 
Palestinians had gathered on Hebron's busy Shuhada Street to march close to the Ibhrahim Mosque where US-Israeli settler Baruch Goldstein opened fire on worshippers in 1994, killing 29 people, before being overpowered, disarmed and beaten to death by survivors. 
Local resident Emad Abu Shamsiya, 51, lived in Hebron at the time of the massacre, which sparked mass riots in which dozens more people were killed.
"It was an Israeli settler that killed Palestinians while they prayed - yet somehow it is the Palestinians who have been expelled from their homes," he said.
Demonstrators chanted slogans against settlements, which have left the city divided into two sectors: H1 is controlled by the Palestinian Authority, while H2 - home to some 30,000 Palestinians who live alongside Jewish settlements - is administratively part of Israel. 
Some protesters threw rocks at Israeli soldiers (MEE/Carlos Donnelly)
Shamsiya and his mother live on opposite sides of the divide, and he told MEE that she has not been able to visit him in eight months.
As well as chanting anti-settlement slogans, Palestinian protesters also threw shoes at a poster of US president Donald Trump.
Trump last week cast doubt on the decades-long process to create a Palestinian state in the West Bank, and has refused to condemn Israel's continued illegal policy of settlement building in the occupied territory.
Mufeed Sharabati, one of the organisers of Friday's demonstration, told MEE he fears that restrctions placed on Palestinians in Hebron mean that Palestinians are dehumanised.
"[Israel] is reducing us to just numbers," he said.
Glancing towards a group of Israeli soldiers manning the checkpoint that separates H1 and H2, Sharabati said: “This is how ghettos are - here, the Israeli government gives settlers an army and support, while we’re slowly pushed out.”
Palestinians have stepped up calls for the Israeli army to reopen Shuhada Street, near the Jewish settler enclave in the heart of the city, that has been largely closed off to Palestinians for the past 23 years since the massacre.
Hebron has been at the centre of a wave of deadly unrest since October 2015 that has killed 252 Palestinians, 36 Israelis, two US nationals, a Jordanian, an Eritrean and a Sudanese national, according to an AFP count.
Additional reporting by Mariam Barghouti

Two States or One State?

THE STARK REALITY IS THAT BOTH SOLUTIONS ARE IMPOSSIBLE UNLESS IMPOSED FROM OUTSIDE, AND JUST WHERE DO WE SEE ANY PROSPECT FOR THAT?

by John Chuckman-
( February 23, 2017, Boston, Sri Lanka Guardian) Israel has created a terrible problem which it is incapable of solving. That is why it has always been the case that the United States must pretty much dictate a solution, but it is unable to do so, paralyzed as it is by the heavy influence of Israel and America’s own apologists and lobbyists.
Trump’s suggestion of a one-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict is welcomed by some because Israel’s settler policy is said to have made two states impossible, as it was most certainly intended to do. However, a little reflection on hard facts makes it clear that a one-state solution is just as impossible.
A single-state solution would be acceptable to all reasonable minds, but you only have to follow the news to know that Israel contains a good many unreasonable minds. Its early advocates and founders were, quite simply, fanatics, and its policies and attitudes were shaped by that fanaticism.
The Israeli establishment could simply not accept a Palestinian population with equal rights and the franchise as part of Israel. They could not do so because they have embraced an almost mystical concept of Israel as “the Jewish state.” Of course, the de facto reality of today’s combined population of Israel and its occupied territories is that Palestinians, who importantly include not just Muslims but many Christians, are already about half of the total.
And there are physical realities forming huge barriers against a single state, things of which many people are not aware. Very importantly, fertility rates in Arab populations are considerably higher than in the European Ashkenazi population which forms Israel’s elite. That has nothing to do with ethnic characteristics. It is a result of much lower levels of affluence influencing the behavior of people having children. It is a universal reality we see.
That’s why Arabic populations are such relatively young populations with a high proportion of children. When Israel bombs a place like Gaza or Lebanon, as it does periodically, it always kills many hundreds of children because they make a big share of the population. An advanced country like Japan has low fertility and traditionally is averse to much migration. It faces a future with an aging and declining population.
All older European and North American countries have fertility rates too low to replace their otherwise declining populations. America or France or Israel or similar states simply do not have enough babies to replace their populations. That’s a fundamental reality of advanced, affluent society. People with rich, demanding lives do not have large numbers of children, anywhere, knowing, as they do, that the few they do have will almost certainly survive and will better thrive with more concentrated resources.
That’s the real reason behind most countries’ immigration policies, not generosity or kindness. But, of course, Israel has a serious problem with immigration, too. As the “Jewish state” it is open to only one category of migrant, and that category of people makes a tiny fraction of the world’s population. Further, most of that tiny fraction live in comfortable, affluent places, far more desirable to live in than Israel – places like America, Canada, Australia, Britain, France, etc.
A single-state Israel would combine low fertility Europeans with higher fertility Arabic people, thus creating a long-term trajectory for a minority-Jewish state, a reality which would be repellent to all conservative Jews and many others, in light of the founding notion of Israel as a refuge from believed widespread anti-Semitism, plus the vaguely-defined but emotionally-loaded notion of a “Jewish state,” and, still further, the biblical myths of God’s having given the land exclusively to Jews.
You simply cannot make rational sense out of that bundle of attitudes and prejudices, yet you cannot get a rational solution to a massive problem otherwise, a problem, it should be noted, of Israel’s own deliberate making in the Six Day War. Likely, when Israel’s leadership started that war, they calculated that Palestinians would come to feel so miserable under occupation that they’d just pick up and leave over time. Moshe Dayan, one of the architects of the war, actually spoke along those very lines of keeping the Palestinians miserable so they would leave. But their calculations were wrong. Most people, anywhere, do not pick-up and leave their native place. Otherwise the world would a constant whirlwind of migrations.
Although Israel does not discuss the relative population growth rate situation in public, authorities and experts there are keenly aware of the reality. It is difficult to imagine them ever embracing a single state for this reason. When you found a state on ideology and myths, as Israel was founded, you very soon bump up against some unhappy realities.
So, if there is not to be a Palestinian state, what are Israel’s other options? There seem to be only two.
One is to deport all or most Palestinians, an ugly idea which is probably also unworkable, although it has very much seriously been discussed among educated Israelis periodically. Apart from the Nazi-like connotations around such an act, who, on earth, is going to take literally millions of people from Israel? In the past, Israeli ideologues have seriously suggested both the country of Jordan and parts of Egypt contiguous with Israel as possibilities.
Can any realistic person believe those states stand ready to take millions of people in? No, of course not, but that hasn’t stopped the ideologues of Israel from going back to the idea again and again. Of course, there is the pure ethical problem of moving millions against their wills and seizing all their property, but ethics have not never featured large in Israel’s policies from the beginning.
The other solution is to re-create apartheid South Africa’s Bantustans, little enclaves of land with often undesirable characteristics into which you crowd all the people that you don’t want and declare that these are their new countries. We see this already in Israel, notably in Gaza, which really is a giant refugee camp much resembling a concentration camp with high fences and automated machine-gun towers surrounding it, the residents being permitted almost no freedom of movement or even economic activity, as for example Gaza’s fishermen being fired on by Israeli gunboats if they stray even slightly beyond tight boundaries in the sea.
The world would not long tolerate that approach no matter how much influence the United States might unfairly exert. After all, for a long time, the United States protected and cooperated with apartheid South Africa, always regarding it as an important bulwark against communism, anti-communism being the fervent secular religion of the day in America. This was so much the case that it even overlooked what it absolutely had to know about, apartheid South Africa’s acquisition of a small arsenal of nuclear weapons with the assistance of Israel, Israel always being keen to keep good access to South Africa’s mineral wealth.
Clearly, those two options are not solutions. Realities absolutely demand either a legitimate two-state solution – which Israel’s leaders have never truly accepted while giving it time-buying lip-service – or a one-state solution which is probably even more unacceptable to Israel’s leaders and much of its population, guaranteeing, as it does, the eventual minority status of Jews.
Israel has itself created a terrible problem which it is incapable of solving. That is why it has always been the case that the United States must pretty much dictate a solution, but it is unable to do so, paralyzed as it is by the heavy influence of Israel and America’s own apologists and lobbyists.
So, in effect, the world just goes around and around on this terrible problem, never doing anything decisive. The macabre dance of Israel and the United States we’ve had for decades yields today’s de facto reality of Israel as nothing more but nothing less than a protected American colony in the Middle East, one in which all kinds of international norms and laws are completely suspended, one where millions live with nor rights and no citizenship. But, after all, colonies have never been places where the rule of law and human rights prevail, have they? Never.

Friday, February 24, 2017

A Kansas man was charged Feb. 23 with shooting to death an Indian man and wounding a second Indian man and an American in a bar. Federal authorities are investigating the incident as a possible hate crime. (Reuters)

 

Authorities in Kansas filed first-degree murder charges against a man accused of opening fire in a bar there, killing one Indian man, injuring two other people and causing fears about bigotry to reverberate across the globe.

Ian Grillot was shot in the hand and chest at a restaurant in Olathe, Kan., after trying to subdue a man who opened fire on two other diners. One of them, Srinivas Kuchibhotla, later died from his wounds. (Youtube/KUHospital)

White House confirms conversation with FBI about Trump and Russia

Reince Priebus, FBI director James Comey and deputy director Andrew McCabe had a conversation which appears to violate justice department rules

FBI director James Comey leaves a meeting on Capitol Hill on Friday in Washington DC. Photograph: Mario Tama/Getty Images

 in New York-Friday 24 February 2017 

The White House has confirmed that its chief of staff spoke with top FBI officials about the bureau’s inquiry into links between Donald Trump’s associates and Russia – a conversation which appears to violate justice department rules to ensure the integrity of investigations.

The administration had sought to push back against reports from CNN and the Associated Press that the chief of staff, Reince Priebus, had asked the FBI’s top two officials to rebut news reports about Trump allies’ ties to Russia.

But in doing so, the White House on Friday acknowledged that Priebus, the FBI director, James Comey, and deputy director, Andrew McCabe, had discussed what the FBI knew about Russian ties to the Trump presidential campaign.

“The White House appears to have violated accepted protocols and procedures,” said former FBI special agent Ali Soufan.

“As an FBI agent, we always know there shouldn’t be any appearance of political interference over a pending investigation. Any kind of appearance of political influence will be considered against existing protocols and procedures.”

Another retired FBI special agent, Michael German, said the FBI leadership had potentially jeopardized an investigation.

“It is illegal for an FBI employee to take information from an ongoing criminal investigation and share it with a potential witness or subject of that investigation. Obviously, if the justice department ultimately initiates a prosecution in this matter, this purported conversation would be exculpating evidence. Again, if it is true that high bureau officials believe the current FBI investigation is [bullshit], they should close the investigation and be prepared to justify this decision, not leak their opinion to anyone outside of the investigation”, German said.

Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee – which is also investigating Trump’s ties to Russia – called on Comey to explain the communications.

“Politicized assertions by White House chief of staff Priebus about what may or may not be the findings of an FBI investigation are exactly the wrong way for the public to hear about an issue that is of grave consequence to our democracy. The American people deserve real transparency, which means Director Comey needs to come forward, in an open hearing, and answer questions,” Wyden told the Guardian.
“If, as Priebus claimed, the FBI not only discussed this issue with the White House but coordinated the White House’s public statements, the American people would also have reason to doubt the impartiality both of the bureau and the Department of Justice to which the FBI is responsible. These claims deserve further investigation.”



What do we know about Donald Trump and Russia?

Trump began his Friday by tweeting an attack on the FBI for being “totally unable” to stop leaks, even from “within the FBI itself”. Speaking later at a conservative conference, Trump again attacked what he called “fake news” and said news organizations “shouldn’t be allowed to use sources unless they use somebody’s name”.

The conversations between Priebus and the FBI concern a New York Times articleon 14 February, which reported that calls and phone records intercepted by US intelligence showed a pattern of communication between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence officials.

Following an administration meeting the next morning, according to the White House, McCabe told Priebus there was nothing to the New York Times’ report, using a colorful phrase. Priebus asked: “What can we do about this?” McCabe gave no answer, and told the White House chief of staff he would get back to Priebus on the issue.

Priebus told McCabe the White House was “getting crushed” over the depth of Trump’s ties to Russia, as reported in the New York Times, and asked: “What am I supposed to do?”

Some time later, senior administration officials told reporters, McCabe called Priebus and said: “We’d love to help but we can’t get into the position of making statements on every story.”
Priebus then asked if he could cite anonymous senior intelligence officials in rebutting the Times article, to which McCabe agreed.

Afterward, FBI director James Comey called Priebus and echoed McCabe’s comments. While the story was baseless, Comey declined to issue an FBI statement saying so publicly, according to senior officials.
Asked by the Guardian whether the bureau challenges the White House’s version of events, the FBI declined to comment.

The senior officials provided their account to White House pool reporters to knock down any follow-up reporting on Thursday from CNN and the AP, both of which reported that the FBI rejected calls to publicly rebut the 14 February story.

The Priebus-McCabe-Comey discussion appears to violate longstanding justice department rules intended to insulate FBI investigations from political interference.

According to a 2009 version of those rules set by Barack Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, only the most senior officials can advise White House officials on active or pending investigations “when it is important for the performance of the president’s duties and appropriate from a law enforcement perspective”.

After former attorney general Loretta Lynch had a private meeting with Bill Clinton last year, widely interpreted as an inappropriate discussion of an FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server, then candidate Trump said it was “horrible” and evidence of a “rigged system”.

In both public and private meetings with Congress, Comey has continued to refuse to address whether the FBI has an active inquiry into Trump associates’ ties to Russia, despite continuing pressure from the press. Both the House and Senate intelligence committees have their own investigations into the matter, and congressional Democrats continue to push for an independent inquiry.

Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, said Priebus “has committed an outrageous breach of the FBI’s independence” and “tainted the integrity of the FBI”.

US ban on Muslim Brotherhood could bring sweeping civil rights violations

Crowd of dozens of men and women waving Egyptian flags
Supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Muhammad Morsi gather in Cairo’s Tahrir Square in June 2012.Majdi FathiAPA images

Charlotte Silver-22 February 2017

US President Donald Trump is reportedly considering an executive order that would designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a “foreign terrorist organization.”

Meanwhile, US Senator Ted Cruz and Representative Mario Diaz-Balart have proposed legislation that could accomplish the same thing.