The man died in hospital after Israeli medics and army doctors attempted to save him
Medics from Israel's army attempted to revive him after he was stabbed by an unknown assailant (Screengrab)
Monday 5 February 2018
An Israeli settler was stabbed to death in the illegal West Bank settlement of Ariel on Monday.
The man succumbed to his wounds and died in hospital after medics and Israeli military doctors attempted to treat him at the scene of the incident.
A spokesperson for the Israeli army confirmed the death and said that a "terrorist came to the hitchhiking stop at the entrance to Ariel and stabbed a civilian."
"An IDF officer that identified the assailant pursued him with his vehicle and hit him. The assailant fled. IDF forces are now scanning the perimeter."
Following the stabbing, the Israeli army raided the nearby village of Hares to search for the attacker. The assailant has still not been captured by the Israeli army.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the attack and sent his condolences to the family.
"We will exact our judgment. These are very hard moments," said Netanyahu.
"The people come together at times like these. I put our faith in the security forces, who are doing an excellent job."
Hamas celebrated the attack and called the stabbing of the Israeli settler a "continuation to the resistance to Trump's Jerusalem declaration."
The militant group also urged the Palestinian authority to halt "all coordination with Israel on security matters."
On Sunday, Netanyahu said ministers would grant formal authorisation on Sunday to a rogue West Bank settlement in response to the murder last month of a rabbi who lived there.
The announcement came amid heightened tensions after Israeli soldiers shot dead a Palestinian teenager during an arrest raid to capture the rabbi's killers in the village of Burqin in the occupied West Bank.
Some 50 families live in the illegal outpost. Palestinian officials condemned the move.
"Netanyahu is trying to make facts on the ground. All settlements in the West Bank, including in Jerusalem, are illegal," said Wasel Abu Youssef, a member of the Palestine Liberation Organisation's executive committee.
Israeli settlements are seen as illegal under international law and major obstacles to peace as they are built on land the Palestinians see as part of their future state, but Israel differentiates between settlements it has approved and those it has not.
Those without approval are referred to as outposts and tend to be populated by hardline religious nationalists who see the entire West Bank as part of Israel.
The official cabinet agenda says ministers will hear a motion to designate the 15-year-old outpost as a "new community" which will have the necessary building permits and a state budget
It was the fifth time the school has been demolished since 2016, Palestinian officials said. Residents, with the help of non-government organisations and EU funding, reconstruct it each time
Bedouin children attend improvised class in the village of Abu Nuwar, West Bank, after the Israeli army demolished their two-classroom school in the West Bank on Sunday AP
Monday 5 February 2018
Israeli authorities on Sunday tore down two EU-funded classrooms that were part of a school for Bedouins in the occupied West Bank because they said they were built illegally.
Palestinians condemned the move.
Israeli authorities say such demolitions carry out court rulings against unauthorised building by Palestinians. Palestinians see it as part of a broader move to seize land for potential Jewish settlement expansion.
The two classrooms, which stood separately from the rest of the hilltop school, were demolished early in the morning by a work crew while Israeli security officers closed off the area, according to residents of the Palestinian village Abu Nuwar.
Tens of thousands of Bedouin, once nomads, live in villages across the desert region of southern Israel and in the West Bank.
It was the fifth time the school has been demolished since 2016, Palestinian officials said. Residents, with the help of non-government organisations and EU funding, reconstruct it each time.
The building was built illegally and without the necessary permits. In addition, the enforcement was approved by the Supreme Court,” said a statement from Israel’s Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories, the military-run authority that deals with Palestinian civilian issues.
Shadi Othman, head of media in the EU office in Jerusalem, said: “The European Union demanded from Israel more than once not to demolish projects the European Union funds and which aim to improve the living conditions of the Palestinians.”
Senior Palestinian official Saeb Erekat said on Twitter the demolition was “the continuation of Israel’s humiliation of international law and only aims to break the Palestinian will for freedom and life.”
Randa Harara is adamant that she will stand up to Israel’s forces of occupation again – once she has made a recovery.
On 11 December, Randa – aged 21 – was shot by a sniper hiding at Nahal Oz, a military checkpoint separating Gaza from Israel. She was taking part in a protest against the announcement by Donald Trump, the US president, that he recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
“My injury will not prevent me from taking part in further clashes [with Israel],” said Randa, who was wounded in the left leg. “This is our duty towards Jerusalem.”
An accountancy student at Al-Azhar University and a campaigner with the Progressive Student Action Front in Gaza, Randa knows that the cost of confronting Israel can be high. “But that doesn’t mean that women should be absent from the battlefield – especially when it comes to the issue of Jerusalem.”
Randa has the backing of her family.
“Cause headaches for Israel”
“I have given my daughter full freedom to do what she believes in,” said her father Kamal, who has accompanied Randa to some of the protests at the boundary area between Gaza and Israel. “We can’t give up our land. It is important to put pressure on and cause headaches for Israel.”
Ahed Tamimi, who turned 17 on 31 January, has come to epitomize the courage of women and girls who challenge the Israeli military. Here in Gaza, many people admire Tamimi for demonstrating her anger at soldiers who suffocate her home village, Nabi Saleh in the occupied West Bank, by slapping one of them.
Leila, a 14-year-old from Jabaliya refugee camp in northern Gaza, used to mainly check social media websites for fashion tips. More recently, she has been searching the Internet for updates on the detention of Tamimi and her trial in an Israeli military court. She has also begun to read more widely about Palestinian politics.
“Ahed is my hero,” Leila – not her real name – said. “I wish I could be like her – an influential person in our struggle with Israel.”
Leila wishes to take part in the protests held along Gaza’s boundary with Israel each Friday. Yet she does not have parental permission to do so. “My mother says it [protesting] is like suicide,” Leila added.
With Israeli forces frequently opening fire on protesters, confronting the occupier can be fatal. Eight protesters from Gaza were killed by Israel along the boundary area in December 2017 alone. More than 480 were injuredduring that month, according to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights.
It would be wrong to claim that people in Gaza are generally enthusiastic about the idea of women and girls confronting the Israeli military.
I asked a sample of 26 people – equally divided between men and women – their views on female participation in such confrontations. Around 80 percent of respondents were opposed to women taking such direct action.
“These women are mothers, wives, daughters and sisters,” one person responded. “We don’t want to lose more people for nothing.”
Others pointed to the conservative and patriarchal nature of society in Gaza.
“There’s no need for female participation in clashes with Israel,” said Mahmoud Abu al-Eish, a 56-year-old Gaza resident. “This should be limited to men who can handle such tough situations. Female participation [in protests] is outside our customs and traditions.”
“Motherland for everyone”
That view is disputed. Iman al-Haj, a journalist, recently pointed out that women have long been involved in the Palestinian struggle. “Female participation is a national duty at a time like this,” al-Haj said.
Al-Haj noted that she had “shared my anger” with other protesters by directly confronting the Israeli military on a few occasions. “I will participate again and again,” she added.
Mariam Abu Daqqa, a prominent figure in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), argued that “women have stood side by side with men” since the Nakba, the 1948 ethnic cleansing of Palestine. “The motherland is for everyone,” she said.
Abu Daqqa has suffered hugely for her political activities.
She was the first woman living in Gaza to be forced out by Israel because of her involvement with armed resistance.
After being arrested in 1969, she was detained for two years and then exiled to Jordan. In 1975, she moved to Lebanon, where she joined the PFLP.
It would be 1995 before she could return to Gaza. By then, her parents were dead.
“I had not been able to see them since 1969,” she said. “I only had my sister left. And she was sick with cancer and died after about two years.”
More recently, Abu Daqqa has set up a studies and training program for former female prisoners.
She notes that women who confront Israel have to overcome a number of barriers. Such barriers have become higher due to the siege Israel has imposed on Gaza, as well as the three major Israeli bombardments the coastal strip has suffered within the past decade.
The losses incurred by each of those attacks all place “an extra burden on women and this burden restricts their ability to take part in confrontations and have a vital role,” she said.
Daring
Women played an important role in the first intifada, which began in Gaza 30 years ago.
Hania Aqel, a 64-year-old woman from Rafah, near Gaza’s border with Egypt, made a number of daring attempts to rescue Palestinians after they had been captured by Israel.
Each time 25 to 30 women would assemble “like a human fence,” she said, “and grab the men who had been arrested” from Israeli vehicles.
The efforts were sometimes successful, albeit at a price. Once, Hania managed to help her son Talaat – then aged 18 – to escape.
“I poured hot water on the soldiers who were arresting him,” Hania said. “I was able to save him but I was shot in my leg by another soldier.”
Samira Mousa, a resident of Jabaliya camp, was active in the Union of Health Work Committees during that rebellion.
Along with many other women, Mousa provided practical support to families of people imprisoned or killed by Israel. That included giving food to families in need.
One of the first people killed by Israeli troops in that intifada, Hatim Abu Sisi “died in front of my house,” Mousa – now aged 57 – recalled.
“His blood filled the entrance of my house,” she said. “That scene affected me a lot and motivated me to provide any help I can to my neighborhood. I planted a tree at the place he was killed. And I’m still taking care of this tree.”
Sarah Algherbawi is a freelance writer and translator from Gaza.
A fierce partisan battle over the Justice Department and its role in the Russia investigation moves into its second week Monday as Democrats try to persuade the House Intelligence Committee to release a 10-page rebuttal to a controversial Republican memo alleging surveillance abuse.
The panel’s top Democrat, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), is expected to offer a motion to release his party’s response to the Republican document during a committee meeting scheduled for 5 p.m. Monday. It was not immediately clear whether Republicans would join Democrats in voting for the document’s release, as some members of the GOP have expressed concerns about its contents.
Speaking Sunday on ABC News, Schiff called the GOP memo a “political hit job on the FBI in service of the president.”
“The goal here really isn’t to find out the answers from the FBI. The goal here is to undermine the FBI, discredit the FBI, discredit the [special counsel] investigation, do the president’s bidding,” Schiff said on “This Week.”
Democrats spent the weekend pushing back against the claim by President Trump and some Republicans that corruption has poisoned the investigation led by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin during the 2016 election. Democrats and some Republicans worry that this view, buttressed by the GOP memo, will lead Trump to fire Mueller or Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who oversees the Russia probe.
Former CIA director John Brennan and lawmakers from both parties on Feb. 4 commented on the release of a GOP memo alleging surveillance abuses by the FBI.(Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)
Calling on Trump not to interfere in Mueller’s investigation, four Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee dismissed on Sunday the idea that the memo’s criticism of how the FBI handled certain surveillance applications undermines the special counsel’s work. Reps. Trey Gowdy (S.C.), Chris Stewart (Utah), Will Hurd (Tex.) and Brad Wenstrup (Ohio) represented the committee on the morning political talk shows.
Gowdy, who helped draft the memo, said Trump should not fire Rosenstein, and he rejected the idea that the document has a bearing on the investigation.
“I actually don’t think it has any impact on the Russia probe,” Gowdy, who also chairs the House Oversight Committee, said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
Stewart, arguing that the two are “very separate” issues, said Mueller should be allowed to finish his work. “This memo, frankly, has nothing at all to do with the special counsel,” he told “Fox News Sunday.”
The four Republicans walked a careful line on the GOP document, which alleges that the Justice Department abused its powers by obtaining a warrant for surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page using information from a source who was biased against Trump. Their comments echoed those of Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), who supported the memo’s release but insists that its findings do not impugn Mueller or Rosenstein.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), whose actions have been at the center of the debate over the memo, did not give interviews Sunday.
Former White House chief of staff Reince Priebus. (Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post)
It remained unclear Sunday whether Trump would use the document as a pretext to fire senior Justice Department officials, a decision that could trigger a constitutional crisis, according to Democrats. Trump advocated the memo’s release, telling advisers it could help him, in part by undercutting Mueller’s investigation and opening the door to firings.
Trump tweeted Sunday that while “the Russian Witch Hunt goes on and on,” the Republican memo “totally vindicates” him.
“Their [sic] was no Collusion and there was no Obstruction (the word now used because, after one year of looking endlessly and finding NOTHING, collusion is dead). This is an American disgrace!” he wrote from Florida, where he spent the weekend.
The four-page GOP memo accused current and former senior Justice Department officials of omitting key facts about former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, the source of some of their information, in applications to carry out surveillance on Page. Steele wrote the now-infamous dossier alleging ties between Trump and Kremlin officials; his research was paid for by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
Republicans say this funding stream should have been disclosed in the surveillance applications, which they argue would not have been approved without the information contained in the dossier. Democrats take issue with both points.
Nunes said Friday that Justice “got a warrant on someone in the Trump campaign using opposition research paid for by the Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign.”
“That’s what this is about,” he told Fox News. “And it’s wrong. And it should never be done.”
If the House Intelligence Committee approves the release of the Democratic memo, it is expected to go to the Justice Department for redactions. Even if the motion succeeds, Trump has five days to block it.
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) urged the president to support the document’s release in the spirit of fairness.
“A refusal to release the Schiff memo . . . will confirm the American people’s worst fears that the release of Chairman Nunes’ memo was only intended to undermine Special Counsel Bob Mueller’s investigation,” Schumer wrote Sunday in a letter to Trump.
The Intelligence Committee voted along party lines last week to release the Republican memo despite warnings from national security officials that it would damage U.S. law enforcement.
As Sunday’s back-and-forth set the stage for more heated debate this week, Republicans faced questions over whether Trump might fire Mueller or Rosenstein.
Reince Priebus, the former White House chief of staff, said Sunday that he “never felt that the president was going to fire the special counsel,” disputing a report in The Washington Post that he was “incredibly concerned” Trump was moving to fire Mueller last summer.
“I never heard that,” Priebus said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Pressed on whether he was aware of the president’s views on the issue, Priebus said Trump was clear about what he saw as Mueller’s conflicts of interest in the job, and he allowed that others may have “interpreted that” as Trump’s desire to fire Mueller.
Former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that Trump should not fire Rosenstein.
“I would tell the president, if I was in his presence, ‘Do not fire him,” he said. “He’ll be fair and impartial. You may be upset about the politicization of what happened, but I don’t think it came from him. Give him a chance to sort this out with the rest of the department.’ ”
Scaramucci also said he hopes Trump decides not to testify before Mueller in the probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
“I actually don’t want him to testify, because as a lawyer, I don’t want him caught in a ‘gotcha’ moment where someone accuses him of lying, where he may not remember something. . . . I would say, ‘Sir, there’s no reason to testify. Let the thing unfold the way it is.’ ”
As Donald Trump crossed into the second year of his presidency, a number of publications have taken looks back at his first year in office. Foreign Policy is no exception. Elephants in the Room asked a number of its regular contributors to name one good thing and one bad thing about Trump’s foreign policy in 2017. We at Shadow Government are taking a slightly different approach (in part because looking back at that first year tends to give us all heartburn). Instead, we’ve asked our team to look forward and identify one big danger and one big opportunity for the White House in 2018. Readers should know up front that the list won’t leave them feeling overly optimistic. In fact, most of the Shadow contributors feel like the United States got lucky in 2017; despite growing global anxiety and uncertainty, the administration managed to avoid any major foreign-policy crises. In his State of the Union address last week, Trump touted a narrative of progress but went light on policy. When pressed, even the most pessimistic Shadow contributor still offers up at least one area where the current administration could actually produce a real win — if it’s willing to follow our practical prescriptions.
One of the few remaining hospitals with an intensive care unit in Idlib was destroyed after Russian and Syrian government jets were suspected of firing a series of air strikes on the Syrian province on Monday.
British NGO Hand in Hand for Syria, which runs the hospital in the town of Kafranbel, confirmed to Middle East Eye that four air strikes had wiped out the hospital, as opposition activists told Associated Press that Syrian government planes alongside their Russian allies had struck the hospital.
The news comes after reports that Russian jets intensified their raids on rebel-held towns and cities in Syria’s northern Idlib province on Sunday night, a day after militants shot down a Russian warplane and killed its pilot.
Along with an intensive care unit, the now-destroyed medical facility included a cardiology ward and a centre for dealing with cancer patients and others suffering from blood and lung disorders.
Hospital ward destroyed in Kafranbel from air strikes (Courtesy Hand in Hand for Syria)
No fatalities were reported, while a representative from the British NGO told MEE that medical staff managed to evacuate all patients after the hospital began receiving reports of attacks on other hospitals in Idlib.
The facility in Kafranbel was the second hospital to be destroyed this month, after a hospital in Maaret al-Numan was also destroyed by Syrian and Russian warplanes on Sunday evening.
After being struck three times on Sunday night, the hospital in Maaret al-Numan was put out of service, according to the Syrian American Medical Society, which runs the facility.
Rescue workers and medical staff were forced to evacuate critically injured patients and premature babies without any incubators.
Commenting on the incident, Fadi Al Dairi, the Syrian country director for Hand in Hand for Syria, said in a statement on Monday: "We are devastated to have to close the doors of a hospital serving a community of over one million people.
"The timing couldn't be worse as this hospital had been supporting victims of the current escalation of ground and aerial attacks."
A representative from Hand in Hand for Syria told MEE that its Kafranbel facility had only recently been equipped to deal with chemical weapons attacks, after a series of suspected chlorine attacks struck Idlib and Eastern Ghouta in the last month.
Three chemical attacks took place in Eastern Ghouta, one of the other last remaining rebel-held areas, since the start of 2018 alone.
Hand in Hand for Syria confirmed in a statement that its Kafranbel hospital was completely destroyed (Courtesy Hand in Hand for Syria)
Images provided by Hand in Hand for Syria showed wards inside the Kafranbel hospital destroyed and no longer functioning.
An ambulance sent over by the Unity Convoy, an independent coalition of charities, was also destroyed in the round of air strikes on Monday, reported the charity.
Many of the evacuated patients were receiving treatment inside the hospital in Kafranbel after being injured by air strikes and artillery shelling by Russian and Syrian government forces.
Ambulance donated by Unity Convoy destroyed by Russian and Syrian government air strikes (Courtesy Hand in Hand for Syria)
The reports come as medical facilities across rebel-held areas continue to be targeted by Russian warplanes as they aid Syrian government forces in their efforts to take control of the rebel-held Idlib province.
Idlib is mostly controlled by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the former al-Qaeda affiliate, which claimed to have shot down the SU-25 fighter using a shoulder-fired weapon.
On Sunday evening, the Syrian Civil Defence Force, also known as the White Helmets, reported that several people suffered from breathing difficulties after a suspected chlorine gas attack on Saraqeb.
An apartment block in the city of Idlib was also destroyed, according to the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.
The suspected chemical attacks come days after the Trump administration accused Bashar al Assad's government of producing and using "new kinds of weapons" to deliver poisonous gases.
Arif collects dust in Zaveri Bazaar, Mumbai. Photo by Priyanka Shankar FEBRUARY 5, 2018
REUTERS - Gold is everywhere in Zaveri Bazaar, one of India’s biggest gold markets. It sparkles in ornaments like bangles, necklaces and earrings displayed in 7,000 tiny shops crammed into narrow alleys. Or slabs of the shiny metal lie in goldsmiths’ factories, ready to be cut.
Located behind the massive Chhatrapati Shivaji train station, in India’s financial capital Mumbai, specks of gold also glitter amidst the dust and grime of Zaveri Bazaar’s streets and drains.
One early Monday morning around 5 a.m., when the bazaar was nearly deserted, stores closed, and the temples not yet open for morning rituals, a group of men appeared to be cleaning the open drains of the streets. They carried brushes, blue polythene bags and aluminum pans.
One was Arif. Nineteen years old, wearing a blue checked shirt and jeans, he collected a heap of dust from the drain and put it into a pan. He scoured for every speck of dust he could find, then disappeared into a dark alley.
Arif is a ‘Ghamelawallah’, the name given to a man who searches for gold amidst the garbage and grime of Zaveri Bazaar’s streets. Their name comes from the Hindi word “Ghamela”, which is the pan in which they collect the gold-flecked dirt.
”Every boy in the family usually becomes a ghamelawallah. This is my family tradition,“ said Arif. ”Depending on the amount of gold I find, I can earn between a few thousands to a lakh (rupees) in a day.” That comes to as much as $1,500 a day.
Zaveri Bazaar is home to many factories and workshops where gold is cut and carved. Some gold particles are carelessly thrown into the streets or get washed away into the drains when the craftsmen wash their hands.
“They come here every morning to sweep every corner of the street, and lift lids off gutters around gold shops to collect dust and sludge”, said Ahmed, who works nearby at a tea shop.
Arif works for about five hours every day, collecting dust and sludge from every corner of the streets. Once his pan is full, he retires to his “work station” in a secluded corner off the street.
He washes the muck with water; if there is gold, it sinks to the bottom of the pan. Arif smiles as he watches some shiny yellow particles sink. “I will now add mercury to the pan so that the gold sticks to the mercury,” he said. He cooks the mixture over a furnace and adds nitric acid, so that the mercury vapourizes and only gold is left behind.
“I have found about five grams of gold today!” Arif exclaimed as pungent smoke swirled from the furnace in front of him where they beat the gold into slabs. “Based on its purity and the price of gold today, I should go back home with some good money.”
He went to the shop of Ram Kulkarni, a goldsmith who buys old gold. He accepts gold from the ghamelawallahs and sells it to the jewellers. Seated on an elevated stool before an antique wooden table, Kulkarni was testing the purity of a slab of gold. People surrounded him, waiting to get their gold ornaments tested. Arif greeted him with a grin and handed over his slab of gold to be tested.
“We share a good relationship. I measure the quantity and purity of the gold they give me, and we accordingly fix the price,” said Kulkarni. “Many of the bigger shops consider such gold as ‘gutter gold’ but any gold found is still a treasure.”
Ghamelawallahs usually work alone, but finding gold isn’t always easy. Sanjay, another ghamelawallah, says the job relies on luck. “There are days when all I find is plain dust and nothing else,” said Sanjay, 40. “During the rainy season it is very difficult for us to find any gold since the muck gets washed away.”
Arif poses for a photograph in Zaveri Bazaar, Mumbai. Photo by Priyanka Shankar
Some ghamelawallahs also take up other jobs. Arif works in a shop selling clothes for young children. Others work as gardeners or cooks. For some like Shakeel, taking up any profession which does not involve gold is not an option.
Shakeel, 24, moved to Mumbai from Agra in northern India to find a job in the gold industry. Having studied until only the eighth grade, it was hard for him to find a job in a gold shop or work as a goldsmith. But his obsession with the metal made him resort to working as a ghamelawallah.
”Gold is money to me. Dealing with the shiny metal makes me feel rich and happy, even though I am now finding it from drains,” he said.
Smiling faces are seen in almost every gold shop on the street as shoppers choose their favourite gold ornaments.
“Indians have an emotional bond towards gold”, said Ram Sethi, who works as a jeweller in the Bazaar. “The demand for the metal is always growing and people consider it a safe investment.” Still, he said, ghamelawallah gold is impure.
The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation
(BMC) street sweepers don’t like the ghamelawallahs. The government employs them to clean the streets and they resent the ghamelawallahs getting in their way.
“They clean only the dust. If they find any other garbage in the form of food waste or pieces of paper and plastic, they throw it back on the streets”, said one sweeper.
The police take a more practical view.
“They are scared of us and hide as soon as they see us approaching the streets for our daily patrol”, said a policeman from the T- Marg police station within the bazaar. “Their work is not legal, but it at least keeps the streets clean so we have not stopped them.”
“Besides,” he chuckled. “How much gold can they actually find?”
Over the past few years, many goldsmiths have become aware of the value of the dust they waste, and have begun collecting it themselves and selling it.
Suresh Chaudhary prefers cleaning the area around his store himself. “I have begun earning a lot by selling the gold dust which scatters around my store when I work,” he said. “I am extra careful in making sure that any gold wasted is collected in polythene bags and sold again.”
But Shakeel thinks there will always be enough gold for him to collect. “Working as a ghamelawallah is the only job I know. The gold from this bazaar’s drains will always fund my pocket.”
Party’s decision-makers to meet on Monday and could order South Africa’s president to resign
Jason Burke Africa correspondent Mon 5 Feb 2018 11.24 GMT
Jacob Zuma is fighting for his political survival as pressure mounts on the South African president to resign before a key national address this week.
Senior leaders of the ruling African National Congress (ANC) met Zuma over the weekend to ask him to step down. Local media reported that the 75-year-old politician, who is battling corruption allegations, refused.
The party’s national working committee, one of its highest decision-making bodies, met on Monday in Johannesburg to consider its next step.
One possibility is that Zuma will be ordered to resign, though this may raise significant constitutional issues. According to ANC rules, all members – even elected officials – fulfil their functions according to the will of the party.
Supporters of Ramaphosa, a multimillionaire businessman who is seen as the standard bearer of the reformist wing of the party, say it is essential that Zuma is sidelined as early as possible to allow the ANC to regroup before campaigning starts in earnest for elections in 2019.
Adriaan Basson, a senior South African journalist, wrote: “Zuma has played all his cards and is now at open war with Ramaphosa and his supporters.”
Zuma had led the ANC since 2007 and has been South Africa’s president since 2009. His tenure in both posts has been controversial, with a series of corruption scandals undermining the image and legitimacy of the party that led South Africans to freedom in 1994 and has ruled ever since.
The ANC still dominates the political landscape in South Africa but its popularity has been dented by a failure to transform the lives of the country’s poor. The party lost control of several cities in municipal elections in 2016and may be forced into a coalition after the 2019 vote.
The party’s top decision-making body is split between supporters of Ramaphosa and Zuma. Supporters and opponents of the president briefly clashed outside the ANC’s headquarters in Johannesburg on Monday morning.
Statements from senior office holders in recent days have made clear that factional rifts within the ANC itself remain deep despite calls for unity.
Paul Mashatile, the ANC treasurer-general, told reporters on Friday the president should step down. “There should be a change of guard. You can’t have two centres of power. The best possible way is if the state president exits,” Mashatile said.
Ace Magashule, the ANC secretary-general and a Zuma loyalist, said the president would still address the opening of parliament in Cape Town on Thursday. The Democratic Alliance, a major opposition party, called for the address to be postponed.
The Economic Freedom Fighters, a second opposition party, has called for a fresh no-confidence motion, which will be heard on 22 February.
Zuma narrowly survived a no-confidence vote in August, when some ANC parliamentarians voted with the opposition. However this will be the first since Ramaphosa took over the leadership of the party.
The only ANC body with the formal power to order Zuma to resign is its national executive committee (NEC). If there is agreement at the national working committee on Monday, the larger and more senior NEC will then meet to recommend rapid action against the president. This is unlikely before the state of the nation address on Thursday, experts say.
The timing and form of any move will depend on the shifting and unpredictable dynamics of a complex struggle for power within the uppermost ranks of the ANC.
In 2008 Thabo Mbeki stood down as president a year before the end of his term after the ruling party formally requested his resignation over allegations he misused his power. His deputy then took power, until Jacob Zuma led the party to another victory in elections in 2009 and became president.
“Zuma’s days in the office can definitely be counted in weeks, not months,” said Jakkie Cilliers, an analyst with the Institute for Security Studies, a Pretoria-based thinktank.
Susan Booysen, professor of politics at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, said the president could potentially hold on for longer, though any delay would damage the ANC.
“The ANC is trying to project this image of a party with a new drive and momentum but this is such a mess-up. Any recent gains are not irreversible even if the inexorable overall direction of travel is clear and Zuma has his back to the wall,” Booysen said.
As president, Ramaphosa will have to balance the need to reassure foreign investors and local businesses against the intense popular demand for dramatic measures to address South Africa’s deep problems.
The 68-year-old former trade union leader has said South Africa was coming out of a “period of uncertainty, a period of darkness, and getting into a new phase”.
The ANC will also face a long period of adjustment, and introspection.
“Zuma will leave a legacy of disbelief and embarrassment and a sense of ‘how could we let this happen?’. There is so much disrepute from this era that it is difficult to contemplate,” said Booysen.
With the system still firmly in control, factors that optimists believed would herald social change never got off the ground, and the gains civil society made were lost.
by Mo Zhixu-
“Rather, reform has been used as a kind of calibrating tool for the system to retain complete control in the political, economic, social, and cultural spheres.”
( February 5, 2018, Guangzhou, Sri Lanka Guardian) In 1981, Polish president Wojciech Jaruzelski ordered a crackdown on the growing Solidarity movement. Eight years later, under pressure of internal unrest as well as a cultural thaw in the Soviet Union, the Polish Communist government and Solidarity held roundtable talks. On June 4, 1989, free parliamentary elections were held in Poland and the Communists suffered a crushing defeat. Jaruzelski resigned in 1990 and Solidarity leader Lech Wałęsa took his place as president. Poland marked its transition to democracy without shedding a drop of blood.
Poland’s case is unique among the political transitions in the collapse of the Soviet and Eastern European communist bloc. Unlike the Soviet Union, where reform was led primarily by Communist Party bureaucrats and went through a chaotic implementation, or Czechoslovakia, where change came through the sudden mass demonstrations of the Velvet Revolution, Polish democracy emerged as a product of the state coming to an agreement with society.
In the view of political scientist Juan José Linz, this phenomenon has to do with Poland’s unique political and social structure. Unlike other Eastern European countries, Poland was not a totalitarian system even though it was also a communist country.
After World War II, Poland did not experience agricultural collectivization. Land remained privately owned and private economy had had a significant percentage in agriculture — a strong contrast with events in other Soviet satellite states.
In addition, the traditional influence of the Catholic Church in Poland remained intact through decades of Communist government. In 1978, Karol Józef Wojtyła from the Krakow parish was selected to become Pope John Paul II of the Roman Catholic Church. As the history’s first Polish pope, his nationality played a major role in shaping the social movement in his homeland. Each of Pope John Paul II’s returns to Poland to celebrate Mass was tantamount to a large-scale social mobilization and at the same time a demonstration of the power of civil society.
A few years ago, my friends Jia Jia (贾葭), Murong Xuecun (慕容雪村) and Michael Anti (安替) met with former Polish President Wałęsa and inquired about his country’s experiences in the transition to democracy. To their surprise, Wałęsa stated bluntly, “My friends, the Polish transition can’t be a model for China. We were blessed to have a Polish Pope.” At a loss for words, Anti replied: “God bless Poland!”
The fact that Poland was not a totalitarian state left room for the growth of civil society. Because of it, organizations like Solidarity could arise in Poland and garner widespread support against the Communist regime.
Following China’s market reforms, Chinese citizens gained more personal, economic, social, and cultural autonomy. Mainland Chinese society seemed to have departed from the familiar dictatorial style, giving many hope that civil society would appear in China and form a local version of the Solidarity movement that would bring peaceful democratic change.
Until a few years ago, this prospect didn’t seem too far-fetched. Limited marketization did bring a handful factors favorable to the growth of civil society, such as the emergence of new social classes, market-oriented media outlets, the establishment of judicial institutions that have the appearance of rule of law, and the growing space for expression on internet. These developments resulted in the spread of the ideas of universal freedom and civil rights, the rise of rights defense activities, and the willingness of participation of the the emerging social classes. People were encouraged by these phenomenon and began to harbor an optimistic picture that the growth of civil society would be tolerated by the regime, that a healthy interaction would develop between the government and the civil society, and that China could thus transition toward democracy.
This optimistic vision was quickly shattered.
After some initial observation, the authorities tightened control over all of these rising social fields: the media and internet were brought under ever-stricter control; human rights defenders and NGOs also faced mounting pressure. Furthermore, the government has been strengthening its grip on the new social classes by establishing party cells in what it calls “the new economic organizations and the new social organizations.”
Some might think these measures are only a product of Chinese leaders’ regimented political mindset, and their optimistic vision is still viable as long as the leaders of the regime change their way of thinking.
But upon closer examination of contemporary China’s political and social structure, you will see that the problem lies not in the mindset of the leadership, but is deeply built into the system.
China’s reform toward marketization has also been called a marginal revolution. This revolution developed as agrarian land was contracted to households, individuals were allowed to create their own businesses, enterprises cropped up in towns and villages, and special economic zones were established in coastal cities. The authorities adjusted accordingly, fuelling the hope that such reforms would eventually make inroads to systemic change, or the most difficult “deep water of reform.”
But in practice, little change has been effected on the system. On the contrary, the reforms on the margins have been adapted to reinforce the system. Specifically, the Party, government, and military saw little substantial change; the Party retained control over the core economic departments, strengthening itself through financial avenues — a phenomenon reflected in the fact that the government has grown more in power and resources while the masses have been regressing. In terms of society and culture, the regime’s monopoly has remained strong but at the same time it has introduced some market elements to strengthen itself.
Thus, the economic progress achieved during the marginal reforms reinforced the regime’s financial capacity and allowed it to double down on its control over society. Contrary to what the optimists had envisioned, market reforms have not touched the root of the political system. Rather, reform has been used as a kind of calibrating tool for the system to retain complete control in the political, economic, social, and cultural spheres.
With the system still firmly in control, factors that optimists believed would herald social change never got off the ground, and the gains civil society made were lost. For example, reacting to the demands of the the new social class, market-oriented media outlets developed a liberal trend for a limited period, but because the industry is subject to Party monopoly, they have ultimately bent to the will of the political system. Faced with combined political and economic pressure, the fate of the internet was similar.
The limited market reform in mainland China didn’t relax the political system’s need for absolute control. It’s more apt to see China as a neo-totalitarian regime with characteristics of a market economy — it can by no means be called merely “authoritarian,” as some do. The neo-totalitarianism does afford the Chinese masses a certain degree of personal, economic, and cultural freedom as well as some social space. Yet that social space is tightly controlled by the state and given little potential for free growth.
In the face of the neo-totalitarian regime’s total control and persistent suppression, the prospect that a civil society born of social movements will usher in progressive political transformation seems increasingly distant and elusive. But history continues. In the 1980s, Poland’s non-totalitarian nature permitted democratic transition through state-society negotiation. Other Communist countries made the transition all the same, whether through peaceful mass demonstrations or violent regime change.
No matter the methods, when a totalitarian regime imposes absolute control over society and robs the people of their rights, it does so against popular support. Social progress may be hindered, but the people will continue to resist the system from within. When the window of opportunity presents itself, history will bring change — at once unpredictable yet in hindsight inevitable.
Mo Zhixu (莫之许), pen name of Zhao Hui (赵晖), is a Chinese dissident intellectual and a frequent contributor of Chinese-language publications known for his incisive views of Chinese politics and opposition. He is the co-author of “China at the Tipping Point? Authoritarianism and Contestation” in the January, 2013, issue of Journal of Democracy. He currently lives in Guangzhou.
This article translated into English by China Change. Read Chinese original at 《莫之许：新极权下没有所谓公民社会》
Hospital ward destroyed in Kafranbel from air strikes (Courtesy Hand in Hand for Syria)
Hand in Hand for Syria confirmed in a statement that its Kafranbel hospital was completely destroyed (Courtesy Hand in Hand for Syria)
Ambulance donated by Unity Convoy destroyed by Russian and Syrian government air strikes (Courtesy Hand in Hand for Syria)
