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

Sunday, January 7, 2018

'We have shifted from defence to offence': Israel bans 20 boycott groups


Activists and members of the 20 groups listed will be banned from entering Israel

The list was released by Israel's Strategic Affairs Ministry, which had refused to release the information for months (AFP)

Areeb Ullah's picture
Areeb Ullah-Sunday 7 January 2018

Israel has issued a list of organisations that are officially banned from entering the country because they support the pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.
The list, released by Israel's Ministry of Strategic Affairs, included organisations from the United States, Europe, Latin America and South Africa after refusing to divulge for months which groups were banned. 
Members of the 20 organisations listed will not be allowed to enter the country due to their support of a boycott of Israel.
The ministry, however, did not clarify whether the list included Israeli citizens who supported the boycott of Israel. 
The organisations listed include the UK-based Friends of Al Aqsa group, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, War on Want, and the Jewish Voices for Peace group. 
Strategic Affairs Minister Gilad Erdan defended the list and said that "boycott organisations need to know that the State of Israel will act against them and not allow [them] to enter its territory to harm its citizens".
Erdan added: "We have shifted from defence to offence. No country would have allowed critics to harm the country by entering it." 
Ismail Patel, who chairs Friends of Al-Aqsa, told Middle East Eye that being put on the blacklist simply "reaffirms his groups support for the BDS movement". 
"The blacklist clearly demonstrates how far Israel is willing to go to stifle legitimate voices of dissent," said Patel.
"Rather than change its disastrous occupation policies, Israel is preoccupying itself with campaigns of harassment against anyone who dares criticise its inhuman treatment of Palestinians.
"This merely reinforced FOA's support for the vital BDS campaign, which is growing steadily. We won't end BDS until Israel [ends] its occupation." 
Prior to the list being issued, several activists had already been banned from entering Israel due to their support of the BDS movement. 
The banned individuals include Isabel Phiri, a citizen of Malawi living in Switzerland who is a senior official of the World Council of Churches. 
According to Haaretz, Phiri was put back on a plane after she arrived at Ben-Gurion International airport in December 2016. 
The interior ministry's Population and Immigration Authority told Haaretz that this was "actually the first time that the state of Israel was clearly refusing entry to a tourist board on anti-Israel activity and promoting an economic, cultural, and academic boycott against it". 
The Ministry of Strategic Affairs was created in 2006 at the request of the then deputy prime minister and now defence minister Avigdor Lieberman. Its role was created to coordinate security and coordinate plans against "strategic threats" posed to Israel. 
Among the strategic threats identified by the newly created ministry was the BDS movement, which calls for a cultural, academic and consumer boycott of Israel until it complies with international law, and ends its illegal occupation of the West Bank and blockade of Gaza. 
The BDS movement was founded in 2005 after a call by a coalition of Palestinian civil society groups for boycott, divestments and sanctions as a form of non-violent pressure on Israel. 
It recently achieved a huge win after more than 100 artists signed an open-letter supporting New Zealand-based singer Lorde to cancel her show in Tel-Aviv as part of the Palestinian call to boycott Israel. 

US projects in Palestinian territories face backlash amid calls for boycott

Palestinian NGOs under pressure to boycott US-funded projects after Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital


Palestinians clash with Israeli troops in the West Bank city of Nablus following a protest against Donald Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Photograph: Majdi Mohammed/AP

in Jerusalem-Sun 7 Jan ‘18 

US-funded projects in the occupied Palestinian territories are facing a sharp backlash amid calls for an organised boycott in reply to Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

A wave of anger since the December announcement has led to protests aimed at halting Palestinian NGOs’ participation in US-funded programmes ranging from clean water deliveries to support for law students, according to officials on both sides.

There have been protests, refusals to meet with US project managers and a rash of requests by groups backed by aid money to seek waivers to remove US-linked branding – including the US flag – from their promotional materials.

Among those pushing hardest for a more organised boycott of US-funded projects has been the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) national committee, which issued a statement calling for a boycott of “activities organised or sponsored by US institutions (such as USAid), in Jerusalem and abroad”.

Events have been cancelled and offers of assistance rejected: for example, Palestinian law schools pulled out of an international event for which the US consulate had planned to provide plane tickets.
The issue of whether to widen the boycott is due to be discussed at an upcoming meeting of the Palestinian central council, which will meet to discuss the Palestinian response to Trump’s Jerusalem decision.

The sharp debate in Palestinian society over whether it should still participate in US-funded projects, and if so with what conditions, comes as Trump and his UN ambassador, Nikki Haley, are debating cutting US aid to both the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which sustains Palestinian refugees, and to the Palestinian Authority in an attempt to force the Palestinians back to the negotiating table.

The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said on Sunday that he “completely agrees” with Trump’s critique of the UN agency, saying it only perpetuates the problem and should cease from operating in the region. “UNRWA must become a thing of the past,” he told a cabinet meeting.

The tenor of the current debate in Palestinian society is discernible at all levels. Ibrahim Ghrouf, who works with a Palestinian NGO in Jericho, one of whose US-funded projects provides clean bottled water, said: “The Trump decision has really harmed the work of NGOs. We distribute clean bottled water that has the US flag on it. There’s never been any problem with that with the public. But after Trump’s decision there has been a lot of sensitivity.

“People came to us and said we have confidence in you but we don’t want you to deal with the Americans. So we’re facing a major problem. We can’t run activities [linked to the US] that it will put us in an awkward position.”

Ghrouf said NGOs would be obliged to comply with any Palestinian national decision over rejecting funding. “It could get worse. We could see a complete boycott if there is a national decision and we would have no choice but to obey and this can’t be argue with that when we are talking about Jerusalem.

His organisation is not alone in experiencing problems. Two miles away at the Good Shepherd school, whose support from USAid is advertised on a plaque by the main entrance, staff described having been picketed by protesters.

Omar Barghouti, a co-founder of the BDS movement, said pressure to cut ties with US-funded projects was being driven by the widespread feeling that the US was not an honest broker.

“The overwhelming majority of Palestinians has always recognised successive US administrations as not just patrons of but also partners in crime with Israel’s regime of occupation, colonization and apartheid,” he said. “But the latest attempt by the far-right, anti-Palestinian Trump-Netanyahu alliance to take off the table UN-stipulated rights of the Palestinian people, including Jerusalem, has taken popular Palestinian protests against this deepening official US complicity to a level that has not been seen since the 1993 Oslo accords.”

The Palestinian discussion of a boycott of US funded projects came as Israelannounced it was banning representatives of 20 foreign NGOs from entering the country for their own support of BDS.

While most of the groups listed are local branches of the international BDS movement, the group includes the US Jewish Voice for Peace and Code Pink. It also includes the British chairty War on Want which was founded to combat poverty in response to letter from publisher and humanitarian Victor Gollancz in the Guardian in 1951.

Rights groups criticised the law as “thought control” and noted that Israel also controls who enters the Palestinian territories apart from one border crossing between the Gaza Strip and Egypt.

Russia-obsessed US politicians and pundits remain curiously incurious about evidence of Trump’s collusion with Israel. (via Facebook)

Ali Abunimah-5 January 2018
Since Donald Trump excommunicated Steve Bannon over comments he made in Michael Wolff’s new book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, American media have spoken of little else.
The president declared that his former strategist and the boss of far-right Breitbart News had “lost his mind” for saying that a meeting Donald Trump Jr. and presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner held with a Russian lawyer during the 2016 election campaign was “treasonous.”
The row has given new life to the dubiousunproven and often spectacularly false media-driven claims of “hacking” and “collusion” between Russia and Trump to steal the election from Hillary Clinton.
Yet hollow as it has turned out to be, “Russiagate” remains the central narrative of the self-styled Democratic and liberal “resistance.”

Pushing Netanyahu’s agenda

However, the special counsel probe by Robert Mueller has indeed uncovered some collusion between the Trump team and a foreign power: Israel.
In a plea agreement last month for making false statements to the FBI, Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn admitted that he had contacted foreign governments during the final weeks of the Obama administration to try to derail a UN vote condemning Israeli settlements.
This possibly illegal effort to undermine the policy of the sitting administration was done at the direction of Kushner and at the request of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Yet mainstream pundits have shown little concern, just as they have shown little interest in any further revelations about what we might well call Israelgate coming out of the Wolff book.
As the book’s publication was brought forward amid the media frenzy, I decided to take a look.
It turns out that Fire and Fury contains evidence that Trump’s policy is not so much America First as it is Israel First.
Wolff recounts an early January 2017 dinner in New York where Bannon and disgraced former Fox News boss Roger Ailes discussed cabinet picks.
Bannon observed that they did not have a “deep bench,” but both men agreed the extremely pro-Israel neocon John Bolton would be a good pick for national security adviser. “He’s a bomb thrower,” Ailes said of Bolton, “and a strange little fucker. But you need him. Who else is good on Israel?”
“Day one we’re moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. Netanyahu’s all in,” Bannon said, adding that anti-Palestinian casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson was on board too.
“Let Jordan take the West Bank, let Egypt take Gaza. Let them deal with it. Or sink trying,” Bannon proposed. “The Saudis are on the brink, Egyptians are on brink, all scared to death of Persia.”
Asked by Ailes, “Does Donald know” the plan, Bannon reportedly just smiled.
Bannon’s idea reflected “the new Trump thinking” about the Middle East: “There are basically four players,” writes Wolff, “Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran. The first three can be united against the fourth.” Egypt and Saudi Arabia would be “given what they want” in respect to Iran, and in return would “pressure the Palestinians to make a deal.”
Another key foreign policy relationship for the Trump administration has been with Mohammad bin Salman, the reckless crown prince and real power in Saudi Arabia, who has been willing to go along with the plan, especially by cozying up to Israel.
According to Wolff, the lack of education of both Trump and MBS – as the Saudi prince is commonly known – put them on an “equal footing” and made them “oddly comfortable with each other.”
Trump, ignorant and constantly flattered by regional leaders, appeared to naively believe he could pull off what he called “the biggest breakthrough in Israel-Palestine negotiations ever.”

Bannon: anti-Semitic, virulently pro-Israel

The book claims that one key source of reported tension between Kushner and his wife Ivanka Trump on the one hand, and Bannon on the other, is that “Kushner had concluded that Bannon was an anti-Semite.”
Yet that anti-Semitism has not prevented Bannon from pursuing a stridently pro-Israel agenda: ironically one of Bannon’s reported accusations against Kushner – whose family has made donations to support Israeli settlements – was that Kushner “was not nearly tough enough in his defense of Israel.”
Bannon’s key ally outside the White House – and therefore a major influence within it – was Adelson, who invested at least $25 million to get Trump elected. This also explains why Bannon constantly tried to outflank Kushner to the right on Israel.
Adelson even told Trump that Bannon was the only person in the White House he trusted on Israel.
That influence did not go away when Bannon departed, with reports that pressure from Adelson pushed Trump to make his ill-fated decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, blowing up whatever vanishingly slim chances he had of advancing a “peace” plan.
Kushner felt further undermined by how the president “had been gleefully telling multiple people that Jared could solve the Middle East problem because the Kushners knew all the crooks in Israel.”
There’s far more evidence that Adelson, a major bankroller of Netanyahu who has always put Israel’s interests first, has far more influence in the White House than Russia can ever dream of.
Wolff’s book confirms that Trump’s presidency has helped revive the historic alliance between anti-Semites and Zionists to drive a far-right pro-Israel agenda.
Yet American politicians, congressional investigators and pundits remain curiously incurious about that.
Editor’s note: an earlier version of this article misstated the location of the January 2017 dinner with Bannon and Ailes.

‘Doomsday Machine’ author Daniel Ellsberg says Americans have escaped self-annihilation by luck



December 22, 2017 

The military analyst turned whistleblower who leaked the Pentagon Papers looks at the existential threat of America’s nuclear capacities in his new memoir, “The Doomsday Machine.” Very little has changed, says author Daniel Ellsberg, when it comes to what he calls the immoral and insane policies regarding nuclear weapons. William Brangham sits down with Ellsberg to discuss the looming danger.

Read the Full Transcript

  • Judy Woodruff:
    Next, from the whistle-blower who released the Pentagon Papers about the Vietnam War, a new book about the dangers of America’s nuclear program.
    William Brangham has that story from the NewsHour Bookshelf.
  • William Brangham:
    It was 1971 when military analyst Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to the press. They were a top-secret Defense Department study of U.S. military involvement in the Vietnam War.
    Their controversial publication blew the lid off what one famous journalist called a bright shining lie. But few know that, in the decade before that, during some of the Cold War’s most dangerous hair-trigger moments, Daniel Ellsberg also spent years analyzing America’s nuclear weapons policy.
    His new memoir chronicles that period. It’s called “The Doomsday Machine- Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner.” And in it, Ellsberg argues very little has changed about what he calls our immoral and insane policies regarding nuclear weapons.
    Daniel Ellsberg welcome to the NewsHour.
  • Daniel Ellsberg:
    Thank you.
  • William Brangham:
    The title of your book comes from the famous Stanley Kubrick movie where a rogue U.S. military officer launches an attack on the Soviets, and as those weapons are flying, it’s suddenly revealed that the Soviets have built a doomsday machine, this enormous global booby-trap that, if they’re attacked, will kill every single thing on Earth.
  • Actor:
    It is not a thing a sane man would do. The doomsday machine is designed to trigger itself automatically.
  • Actor:
     But surely you can disarm it somehow.
  • Actor:
    No, it is designed to explode if any attempt is ever made to un-trigger it.
  • Actor:
    Automatically?
  • Actor:
    Ah, it’s an obvious commie trick, Mr. President. We’re wasting valuable time. They’re getting ready to clobber us.
  • William Brangham:
    At the time, it was somewhat considered a fantasy idea, but you argue in this book — and this is the title of your book — that that’s really what we have on our hands, is a doomsday machine.
  • Daniel Ellsberg:
    Yes, and we had it then.
    Kubrick got that idea from Herman Kahn, a colleague of mine and a friend of mine at the RAND Corporation, who put it forth as a hypothetical device for deterrence. But he said, that would kill too many people.
  • William Brangham:
    Surely, no one would build a device like that.
  • Daniel Ellsberg:
    Killing everyone. He said, no one would. No one had done it. And no one, he felt, would ever do it.
    Well, he was mistaken. There was a doomsday machine at that time. We didn’t know actually until another 20 years about the phenomenon of nuclear winter, that the military targets we were going to hit in cities — and, actually, in those days, they planned to hit every city over 25,000 in the Soviet Union and in China. If we were in war with the Soviet Union, we would also hit China.
    Those cities burning would have lofted in firestorms, not ordinary fires, but as in Hiroshima or Tokyo or Dresden, that would loft the smoke and soot by tens of millions of tons into the stratosphere, where it wouldn’t rain out.
    It would be for over a decade, and it would lower the sun’s temperatures on the Earth, the sunshine, by about 70 percent.
  • William Brangham:
    That’s an agricultural holocaust as well.
  • Daniel Ellsberg:
    All the harvests would be killed for years, basically, and everyone, nearly everyone, would starve.
  • William Brangham:
    In 1961, as a young consultant to the secretary of defense, Ellsberg remembers being shocked after seeing a top-secret document estimating how millions of people would be killed with a U.S. nuclear strike on the Soviets.
  • Daniel Ellsberg:
    And when I held that piece of paper in my hand, the word in my mind was evil. Evil. This shouldn’t exist.
    This was the operational plan annually for the Joint Chiefs of Staff that had been approved by General Eisenhower. And I thought, there shouldn’t be anything in the world that corresponds to this.
    But there has been then and ever since.
  • William Brangham:
    Your book documents many of the mishaps and mistakes and near misses that many Americans may not be aware of in the last 40 years of our nuclear era. But yet somehow we have escaped annihilating ourselves. Why is that?
  • Daniel Ellsberg:
     Luck.
    Will it work for another 70 years? I’m not confident of that. At this very moment, for example, we are making nuclear threats against a nuclear weapon state, a state with nuclear weapons.
    (CROSSTALK)
  • William Brangham:
    You’re referring to President Trump saying we will rain fire and fury on the North Koreans.
  • Daniel Ellsberg:
    North Korea. That’s right.
    Now, fire and fury could include napalm, white phosphorous, a lot of high explosives, which they have experienced before, by the way, in the 1950s. They have been through. And it’s not something they want again.
    But that could quickly escalate. They didn’t have nuclear weapons then. There has been no imminent threat of any attack, really, or a nuclear attack on a nuclear weapons state since the Cuban Missile Crisis. That was half-a-century ago.
    I was part of that. And I have concluded, after 40 years of research, that neither Kennedy nor Khrushchev intended at all to carry out their threats of armed conflict. I believe they both believed in their own minds they were bluffing and that they would back off if necessary.
    And yet events got away from them. I think we came within a hand’s breadth of blowing up the world. So, this problem didn’t start with Donald Trump, and it won’t really end with it. The system that puts everything on the decisions of one man, it’s crazy.
  • William Brangham:
    In addition to his book, Ellsberg is back in the public eye again because of this. Steven Spielberg’s new movie details The Washington Post’s decision to publish parts of the Pentagon Papers, the ones Ellsberg leaked, and which the Nixon administration tried to stop.
    The legal fight went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The movie is called “The Post,” and it’s in theaters this month.
    I’m just curious why you think the story of the Pentagon Papers is still resonant today.
  • Daniel Ellsberg:
    We have had a war going on against the media, and it didn’t start with Donald Trump.
    Barack Obama prosecuted three times as many people for leaking as all previous presidents put together. I was the first to face such a prosecution. That’s why my name is coming up now, I think, more.
    There were two after me before Obama, and then nine or 10, depending how you count some of them, under Obama. I believe that Donald Trump has shown every sign that he will continue that, though he hasn’t yet. He’s actually berated his attorney general for not coming up with indictments for leaks right now.
    I have no doubt that Attorney General Sessions will meet his demands.
  • William Brangham:
    The book is called “The Doomsday Machine- Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner.”
    Daniel Ellsberg, thank you so much.
  • Daniel Ellsberg:
    Thank you for having me.
At a news conference at Camp David Jan 6., President Trump responded to a question from a reporter about a tweet he posted on his mental state earlier that day. 

President Trump just dived headfirst into a question that many won’t go near: Is he okay?

“The Democrats and their lapdogs, the Fake News Mainstream Media are taking out the old Ronald Reagan playbook and screaming mental stability and intelligence,” he wrote Saturday on Twitter.

“Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart.”

So more than okay, in his opinion.

But, as Trump noted, others have expressed doubts. His tweet may have been in reaction to a new book, “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House,” which says that some of the president’s advisers have privately belittled his sanity and intelligence.

Or he may have been thinking of Politico’s report that a Yale University psychiatrist met last month with a more than a dozen members of Congress — including an unnamed Republican senator — to discuss concerns that Trump was unstable. (He is, the psychiatrist said.)

But the book’s accuracy is in some doubt, and the Yale psychiatrist, Bandy X. Lee, shared her concerns despite the American Psychiatric Association's ban on diagnosing people who have not been personally evaluated.

And as Trump noted, the politicians who most commonly go on record to question his mental fitness tend to be his enemies.

But there is a shortlist of people in or near Trump’s inner circle who have voiced doubts about his competence, or who have been reported to have done so, even if some denied it later.

'Devolving'

At the top of the list is Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who in 2016 was considered a front-runner to become Trump’s running mate and, later, was a candidate for secretary of state, according to CNN.

As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Corker called Trump’s foreign policy ideas “very thoughtful” and even met with the candidate that year.

But Corker’s high opinion did not survive the first year of Trump’s presidency.

He called reports that Trump had blurted out state secrets to Russia “worrisome” in May, as CNN noted. A few months later, Trump appeared to praise marchers at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, and Corker used the S word:

“The president has not yet been able to demonstrate the stability nor some of the competence that he needs to demonstrate to be successful,” he said in August.

His words shocked some in Washington. As the New York Times notes, Republican senators had called Trump unstable before — but they did so when they were running against him in the GOP primary. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) called Trump a “kook” in 2016, for example, but now chides others for doing the same.

And yet Corker has shown no sign of improving his opinion on Trump. In October, he called the White House “an adult day care center” on Twitter and told reporters: “I’ve seen no evolution in an upward way. As a matter of fact, it seems to me it’s almost devolving.”

'Outside the realm of normal'

Barely two months into his presidency, Trump accused former president Barack Obama of wiretapping him during the election.

Trump has offered no evidence, and among those disturbed by the claim was his FBI director, James B. Comey, according to the New York Times.

Comey told associates that Trump was “outside the realm of normal,” the Times reported, and “crazy.” The president fired him a few weeks later.

The former FBI director has not commented publicly on his opinion of Trump’s mental capacity. But Comey didn’t trust Trump, he later testified and took notes on every conversation he had with Trump in case the president turned out to be a liar.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson did not directly respond to an Oct. 4 news report that he referred to President Trump as a “moron." 
'Moron'

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was so frustrated with Trump by the summer that he insulted the president in front of other Cabinet officials, according to NBC News, and called Trump a “moron.”
A spokeswoman for the State Department denied that Tillerson used the word, but the secretary initially did not. Instead, Tillerson refused to “dignify” questions from CNN about his alleged remark and called Trump “the most unique president we have ever seen in modern history.”

Months later — on Friday, hours before Trump tweeted about his mental abilities — Tillerson addressed the issue.

“I’ve never questioned his mental fitness,” Tillerson  told CNN. “I have no reason to question his mental fitness.”

'I’m worried'

While it wasn't intended to be public, a conversation last summer between Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) ended up in the news after someone left a microphone switched on after a subcommittee hearing.

The two senators were complaining about the budget process and Trump’s ignorance of governance, as The Washington Post wrote at the time.

“I think — I think he’s crazy,” Reed said. “I mean, I don’t say that lightly and as a kind of a goofy guy.”

“I’m worried,” Collins replied.

'Crazy ... but he's a genius'

As we said, it’s a short list.

Others have said far worse about Trump’s mental abilities, but they had obvious political motivations. Hillary Clinton called him “dangerously incoherent,” for example, before he beat her in the presidential election.

And some of the most dramatic reports questioning Trump’s sanity and intelligence are also the shakiest. The president’s friend, Thomas J. Barrack, is quoted in “Fire and Fury” as calling him “not only crazy but stupid.”

But Barrack denied saying any such thing and compared Trump to Socrates in an interview with the New York Times.

In the same article, the newspaper reported that Trump’s son-in-law and adviser, Jared Kushner, has his own take on the president’s mental competence.

Trump is “crazy,” Kushner said, according to the Times, “but he’s a genius.”

Why Can’t We Be Illiberal Friends?

Orban and Trump were expected to reset U.S.-Hungarian relations. A year later, the two countries are still at odds. What went wrong?

trumporban

No automatic alt text available.President Donald Trump may have rattled and alarmed many world leaders even before he took office, but with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, the two seemed poised for a fine friendship, or at least improved U.S.-Hungarian relations.

In July 2016, when many leaders offered support for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, then widely expected to be the next U.S. president, Orban hailed Trump as an “upstanding American presidential candidate.” He said of Trump’s foreign-policy platform, “I myself could not have drawn up better what Europe needs.”

Just after Trump’s surprise victory, Orban told reporters, “I spoke on the phone with the new U.S. president and I can say that our position has improved remarkably.” He added, “I told him that I have not been there for a long time as I was regarded as a ‘black sheep.’ [Trump] laughed and said so was he.”

The jocular tone was a sharp contrast with the Barack Obama administration, which repeatedly lectured Orban and the Hungarian government, going so far as to ban six Hungarians — individuals connected to the government — for taking part in activities that undermine democratic values,
including corruption. That raised hopes in Budapest for a new stage in ties with Washington.

“Donald Trump has made it clear that he regards Hungary highly,” Orban said.

But nearly a year into the Trump presidency, the two have little to show for it. There has been no White House visit for Orban, nor has Trump visited Budapest. The State Department criticized the Hungarian government for a law widely seen as targeting Central European University, a Budapest-based institution founded by George Soros. With no U.S. ambassador in Hungary, deputy chief of mission David Kostelancik delivered a speech defending freedom of the press in October, much to the ire of the Hungarian government, which has cracked down on independent outlets. The State Department is even offering a “funding opportunity” to “objective media in Hungary.”

All of which raises the question: What went wrong for Orban and Trump?

The short answer is that the relationship between the United States and Hungary — or indeed the United States and any country — is not just about who sits in the Oval Office.

“I think the expectations were always very elevated,” David Koranyi, a Hungarian analyst at the Atlantic Council, told Foreign Policy. Orban himself had enthusiastically embraced what he called “illiberal democracy” in 2014, and he may have thought he found a kindred spirit in Trump.

“Orban put himself into this mindset that he was an early trailblazer of sort of nationalistic populism that Trump is also representative of,” said Koranyi, who served as undersecretary of state and chief foreign policy and national security advisor when Gordon Bajnai was prime minister of Hungary.

And Hungarians also misunderstood American institutions, thinking that a change in the White House would automatically translate into a change in U.S. policies throughout the entire civil service, wrote Zselyke Csaky of Freedom House in an email to FP.

“This partly shows a misunderstanding of how the U.S. government and administration works—an assumption that similar to Hungary and the region, long-term policies are easy to change because for example there is no independent civil service—and partly was a potentially risky but high-reward bet when the Trump administration came into power,” she said.

“I don’t think Orban has soured on the president,” Csaky wrote. “I think he’s just waiting for the page to turn in American diplomacy.”

The longer answer is that a particular mixture of people and events all but ensured that foreign policy toward Hungary would not be dictated solely by the president.

The first of those people was Sebastian Gorka, who was born to Hungarian parents and lived there from 1992 to 2008, and who was appointed as deputy assistant to the president in January 2017. He looked like the ideal point man for Budapest’s efforts to get closer to the White House: SLI Group, a lobbying firm Hungary hired in Washington, exchanged emails with Gorka on Feb. 2, 2017, according to FARA filings, and Gorka met Hungary’s foreign minister at the opening of the new Hungarian Embassy in Washington in March.

Unfortunately for all involved, Gorka and Orban had, according to Koranyi, a “spectacular falling out” in 2007. “Gorka openly attacked Orban, accusing him of using 1950s-style communist methods and anti-American views,” Koranyi said. Indeed, Gorka even apparently tried to form a new party — an alternative to Orban’s Fidesz, with members of the far-right Jobbik party after Orban proved unable to oust the ruling Socialist party in elections in 2006.

Koranyi added by email, “This effort led to nowhere and Gorka, totally sidelined, left Hungary in 2008 for the US.”

Gorka told FP he last met Orban in the early 1990s. The Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade declined to provide any comment for this piece.

“They were quite unlucky with Sebastian Gorka — he’s of Hungarian origin, but left Hungary with comments saying Orban is unable to win an election in 2006 or 2007,” Hungarian journalist Szabolcs Panyi told FP. In 2007, Gorka gave an interview saying Fidesz was not functioning and could not function, and predicted Fidesz would not win in 2010. Orban came back to power in 2010.
There was “obvious tension between Gorka and Orban’s people. Gorka made it clear he’s not going to be a Hungarian lobbyist around Trump,” Panyi added.

Panyi also noted that, when a series of articles ran in Forward magazine alleging that Gorka backed an anti-Semitic militia in Hungary, only the former deputy prime minister and current European commissioner Tibor Navracsics came to Gorka’s defense; the Hungarian government did not. (Later in the year, the government did effectively blacklist Lili Bayer, the journalist who wrote the stories.)
At any rate, Gorka was out of the White House in August 2017.

But Hungarian officials also miscalculated the U.S. response to the crackdown on Central European University, or CEU, for which the State Department came out in support. Orban’s attack on the CEU should have worked fine with the Trump administration: George Soros openly supported the Democratic Party and sharply criticized Trump, noted Paul Lendvai, author of Orban: Hungary’s Strongman.

“But at the same time, there was such a support for the CEU — by Nobel Prize winners, leading universities … he [Orban] underestimated the role of how many people make politics,” Lendvai said.
Third, the State Department under Trump has, to put it delicately, taken its time putting new people in place; Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Wess Mitchell only started in October 2017. In the meantime, department officials essentially continued policies in place under the Obama administration. Acting spokesperson Mark Toner put out a statement in support of CEU in March, and spokesperson Heather Nauert did so again in May.

In Budapest, in the absence of a U.S. ambassador as in so many other countries, Kostelancik, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service who has been in Budapest since 2015, is left in charge, free to reiterate the traditional American defense of a free press. Even the grant to fund independent media was, according to Panyi, suspected by Hungarians to be an Obama administration plan, too — but one nevertheless executed under Trump.

Asked for comment, the State Department offered, “Hungary is a NATO Ally, and we work together closely to confront the serious challenges that face both of our nations. As in any new administration, we have undertaken a careful review of our policy toward individual countries, including Hungary, and toward Europe overall.”

That funding was “the one step that the Hungarian government has clearly not expected,” wrote Csaky. “They were so surprised that it took them a few days to come up with a statement and claim that the U.S. is interfering in Hungarian domestic politics and, ultimately, in the 2018 elections.”
Fourth, the ongoing investigation into whether Trump campaign team colluded with Russia has clouded the prospects for better ties with a Hungarian leader notoriously friendly with Vladimir Putin.

“I think he genuinely expected a big druzhba [friendship] between Russia and the United States,” Koranyi explained. Instead, there have been new congressionally mandated sanctions and the provision of lethal aid to Ukraine, and it has become increasingly complicated to work with those who work so well with Russia.

All is not necessarily lost for Orban. There are rumors he will be at the National Prayer Breakfast for a photo opportunity in February. He’s also been able to take some of Trump’s language about fake news and make it his own.

“What we now see, and it’s new, and it’s probably inspired by President Trump, is the ‘fake news,’ and to publicly name individual media outlets and journalists, specific individuals, and say they’re the ones who are spreading fake news, bad news about Hungary,” said Marta Pardavi of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee. “That’s something that, in this very fragile media landscape, is impacting journalists.”

And Orban hasn’t given up on the Trump administration just yet. Hungary abstained from a United Nations vote condemning Trump’s controversial decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the U.S. Embassy there, and blocked a similar resolution in the European Union.
“The fact that Hillary Clinton was not elected was a great boon for Orban,” Lendvai said, pointing out that she criticized Hungary’s increasing illiberalism as secretary of state. “I think [Orban] sees the general international situation as favorable for him.”

That doesn’t necessarily mean that Orban will consummate closer ties with Trump, though. The U.S. leader is busy rattling nuclear sabers over North Korea, threatening China and other countries on trade, and browbeating U.S. allies on defense spending, all while busily attacking the media and former political opponents at home. The particular problems of one Central European leader, as ideologically similar as he may be, don’t amount to much.

“What I think he failed to understand, and this is my interpretation, is how utilitarian Trump is. And in the grand scheme of things — Orban doesn’t really matter that much,” Koranyi said.

Update, Jan. 22 9:20 am: This piece was updated to include comment from the State Department.

Rohingya insurgents say they have no option but to fight Myanmar


Robert Birsel-JANUARY 6, 2018

YANGON (Reuters) - Rohingya Muslim insurgents said on Sunday they have no option but to fight what they called Myanmar state-sponsored terrorism to defend the Rohingya community, and they demanded that the Rohingya be consulted on all decisions affecting their future.

The Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) launched raids on the Myanmar security forces on Aug. 25, which sparked sweeping counter-insurgency operations in the Muslim-majority north of Rakhine State that led to widespread violence and arson and an exodus of some 650,000 Rohingya villagers to Bangladesh.

The United Nations condemned the Myanmar military campaign as ethnic cleansing. Buddhist-majority Myanmar rejected that.

But since the August raids, the small insurgent group has launched few if any attacks until Friday, when its fighters ambushed a Myanmar military truck, wounding several members of the security forces.

“ARSA has ... no other option but to combat ‘Burmese state-sponsored terrorism’ against the Rohingya population for the purpose of defending, salvaging and protecting the Rohingya community,” the group said in a statement signed by leader Ata Ullah and posted on Twitter.

“Rohingya people must be consulted in all decision-making that affects their humanitarian needs and political future.”

The ARSA claimed responsibility for the Friday ambush but gave no details of the clash.
A Myanmar government spokesman said the insurgents were trying to delay the repatriation of refugees from Bangladesh under a plan the two governments have been working on.

“ARSA aims to frighten those who are considering returning, to show the region doesn’t have peace,” Zaw Htay said.

Myanmar and Bangladesh have been discussing a plan to repatriate the refugees but more insecurity in Myanmar is likely to raise even more doubts about how quickly that might happen.
The refugees complain that they have not been consulted on the plan.

FIGHT TO THE END

Details of the repatriation plan have yet to be finalised and many questions remain, not only about security but also about the terms refugees will return under, and whether they will be able to go back to their homes or be resettled in camps.

Rohingya have for years been denied citizenship, freedom of movement and access to services such as healthcare. Myanmar regards them as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh.

Zaw Htay rejected the ARSA call for the Rohingya to be consulted saying the government was already negotiating with leaders of both the Buddhist and Muslim communities.

“We will not accept terrorism and fight against them until the end,” the spokesman said, adding that no one should offer any support to the group.

The ARSA dismisses any links to Islamist militant groups and says it is fighting to end the oppression of the Rohingya people.

A military spokesman declined to make any immediate comment about the security situation in the north of Rakhine State.

The area is largely off-limits to reporters.

Serious communal violence between Rohingya and ethnic Rakhine Buddhists erupted in 2012 and sporadic unrest followed.

The violence that began in August and the refugee crisis it caused has drawn international condemnation and raised doubts about Myanmar’s transition to democracy after nearly 50 years of military rule.

ARSA did not say where leader Ata Ullah was but Myanmar suspects the insurgents flee into Bangladesh then slip back into Myanmar to launch attacks.

NASA's $1 billion Jupiter probe has taken mind-bending new photos of the gas giant

juno junocam jupiter perijove 10 nasa jpl caltech swri msss 7
An illustration of NASA's Juno spacecraft flying above the clouds of Jupiter.NASA/JPL-Caltech/SwRI/MSSS/Kevin Gill




NASA's $1 billion Juno spacecraft completed its 10th high-speed trip around Jupiter on December 16.

The robot gets relatively close to the gas giant planet and takes new photos with its JunoCam instrument roughly every 53 days, while traveling at speeds up to 130,000 mph.

It can take days or sometimes weeks to receive the images, but the wait is worth it. The latest batch of photos features countless swirling, hallucinatory clouds and storms.

Researchers at NASA and the Southwest Research Institute uploaded the raw image data to their websites in late December. Since then, dozens of people have processed the black-and-white files into gorgeous, calendar-ready color pictures.

"As pretty as a planet can get, but get too close and Jupiter will END YOU," Sean Doran, a UK-based graphic artist who regularly processes NASA images, said about the new images in a tweet.

Here are some of the best new photos and animations made with JunoCam data by Doran and other fans of the spacecraft.

View As: One Page Slides

NASA launched Juno in 2011, and it took nearly five years for the probe to reach Jupiter.

Juno's orbit takes it far beyond Jupiter — then quickly and closely around the world — to minimize exposing electronics to the planet's harsh radiation fields.

Juno's orbit takes it far beyond Jupiter — then quickly and closely around the world — to minimize exposing electronics to the planet's harsh radiation fields.
Jupiter's southern temperate belt.NASA/JPL-Caltech/SwRI/MSSS/Kevin Gill

During each 53.5-day orbit, called a perijove, JunoCam records a new batch of photos.

During each 53.5-day orbit, called a perijove, JunoCam records a new batch of photos.
Jupiter's southern tropical zone.NASA/JPL-Caltech/SwRI/MSSS/Kevin Gill

The spacecraft is the only one ever to fly above and below Jupiter's poles.

Researchers are trying to make sense of the gas giant's swirling mess of polar cloud formations, like these captured during Juno's tenth perijove.

The planet's many bands of cloud groups are also a scientific puzzle.

Some of the storms seen on Jupiter are larger than Earth's diameter.

Some of the storms seen on Jupiter are larger than Earth's diameter.
Scientists say this is a "mind-bending, color-enhanced view of the planet’s tumultuous atmosphere."NASA/JPL-Caltech/SwRI/MSSS/Gerald Eichstädt/Seán Doran

A full set of JunoCam images looks like this:

A full set of JunoCam images looks like this:
An overview of all Juno perijove 10 images.NASA/JPL-Caltech/SwRI/MSSS/Kevin Gill

But some fans of the spacecraft have figured out how to stitch them together into time-lapse movies.


Source: NASA/JPL-Caltech/SwRI/MSSS/SPICE/Gerald Eichstädt

NASA expects Juno to orbit Jupiter for at least a couple more years, and continue beaming back incredible new pictures.

However, the space agency will eventually destroy the $1 billion robot. This will prevent an accidental crash into Jupiter's icy moon Europa, which may harbor an ocean — and potentially alien life.

However, the space agency will eventually destroy the $1 billion robot. This will prevent an accidental crash into Jupiter's icy moon Europa, which may harbor an ocean — and potentially alien life.
Half of Jupiter's icy moon Europa as seen via images taken by NASA's Galileo spacecraft in the late 1990s.NASA/JPL-Caltech/SETI Institute
Sources: Business Insider (12)