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

Wednesday, April 4, 2018

Sri Lanka desperately need political stability — Governor


Whatever political configuration in the coalition government, the policy, basic services and development programmes should not be hindered

( April 4, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Sri Lanka’s need of the hour is to overcome the current political instability quickly as prolonged instability will bring disaster to the country’s economic consolidation, Central Bank Governor Indrajit Coomaraswamy said today.

The government should initiate a framework for service delivery, effective policy formulation and continuation of development activities, he told a media conference convened to brief the monetary policy review of the Central Bank in Colombo on Wednesday.

“Whatever political configuration in the coalition government, the policy, basic services and development programmes should not be hindered,” he said adding that the stability of the governing coalition will be essential to limiting the damage

The present administration has taken several tough decisions towards economic reforms it has brought successful results while resurrecting the economy, he claimed.

The enactment of the Inland Revenue Act, Hambantota Port project deal and several other foreign-funded development programmes were among the different initiatives taken by the government for the betterment of the country despite differences of opinion among its coalition partners, he added.

He disclosed that initial steps have been taken by the government to stabilise the economy as satisfactory, highlighted by lower inflation, a more favourable fiscal performance, and an improvement in the external accounts.

It remains an open question whether the political will is present to ensure faithful implementation of the economic reforms, he noted pointing out that the economic growth will be around 5 percent this year from an unexpected 3.1 percent in 2017 with an anticipated increase in foreign direct investment.

There’s a bad moon on the rise


The Sunday Times Sri LankaSunday, April 01, 2018

Ranil on the cross, JO searching for 113 nails to crucify him; and guess who’s giving them the hammer to drive the nails home?

It’s there in the koha’s avurudhu caw, it’s there humming in the buzz of the bees, it’s there in the breeze, in the rustle of the leaves, and it’s found and murmurs on the quivering lips of the people: There’s a bad moon on the rise for Lanka.

On this Easter Sunday morning as the world celebrates the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe finds himself tied to the cross, branded a thief. Below him, he can see the Joint Opposition mob frantically searching for 113 nails to crucify him. And guess who’s offering them the hammer to drive the nails home?

This April 4, parliament will rise to debate and vote on the no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Ranil Wicremesinghe. It’s a motion born out of the joint opposition’s elation in having garnered the popular vote at February’s local government elections. They know they are bound to lose it. But are they worried? No, no.
Sirisena: Where the buck stops
Its real purpose is not to win it but to put the shivers into government ranks, create a leadership crisis within the UNP and show the masses on what taught tightrope this coalition government precariously walks the walk today; and on what tremulous strands of coir it perilously balances its act. 

And that it’s doomed to fall. And it realises that, after having thrown the seeds of dissent, bringing down both the UNP and the SLFP before 2020 is nothing more than child’s play. In fact, the puerile way the Government has reacted, the joint opposition’s determined campaign is akin to stealing candy from a kid.

For both parties in the coalition Government have taken the bait and are doing the joint opposition’s bidding, dancing to its music and acting in accordance with the Mahinda script which has devised a tragedy at its ending. It’s not the prime minister’s scalp they are after. The no-confidence motion is to drain the lifeblood of this coalition Government and render it moribund — for the nation not to resurrect the corpus come 2020 but to puke upon it.

A government’s duty is to govern. In that rose-hued dawn three years ago, much was expected of this Government and three years later Lanka finds that much has been denied to the masses. On the economic front, the country totters on the brink of an abyss. On the political front, it seems it has voluntarily gone over the precipice and lost the people’s confidence. The last three years tell a sad tale of how a Government voted to office with a silver spoon became the spendthrift of the nation’s hopes and trust; and how it squandered the goodwill and faith the people had lavishly reposed upon it.

Its political pamphlet, promising the sun, moon and stars to usher a Yahapalana era of just governance, to lift the nation from the sewers of corruption and to embolden it with hope that a new enlightened epoch awaited them, today lies traduced in the dust for the people to trample upon. For the promised dawn, it vowed to usher now stand proven false. No wonder there’s a bad moon on the rise.

Ranil: On the cross
The coalition Government has gone beyond the pale of redemption. It’s evident there’s no love lost between the two main parties. The partnership is but a farce, a façade to hide the mad confusions that broil within its ranks subjected as it is to the opposition’s oppressive heat.

The opposition’s duty is to oppose. And they have done a super duper job to make the Government cringe and crawl. From day one of losing the presidential election in 2015 to now, they have worked a miracle to ensure their resurrection: Even succeeded in turning Sirisena to a Judas. To betray the gratitude Sirisena said — on a Derana 360 chat show in the run up to the local government elections in February — he had to his running mate Ranil for making him president.

This week on Wednesday Maithripala Sirisena showed the extent of his gratitude in no small measure. He gave Ranil Wickremesinghe a public slapping by stripping him of control of the Central Bank.

He removed the Central Bank and the Securities and Exchange Commission from the Prime Minister’s purview. A gazette extraordinary announcing the President’s decision was issued on Tuesday, a week before the no-confidence motion against Wickremesinghe was to be taken up. Now the two institutions have been brought under the Ministry of Finance.

President Sirisena has also put on hold some draft bills, proposed amendments, resolutions, orders etc, which Prime Minister Wickremesinghe was to present to Parliament, in his capacity as the Minister of National Policies & Economic Affairs. The amendments were to be moved to the Monetary Law Act, No. 58 of 1949, Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka Act, No. 35 of 2002, Exchange Control Act, No. 24 of 195, Securities and Exchange Commission of Sri Lanka Act, No. 36 of 1987, National Youth Service Council Act, No. 69 of 1979, Youth Corps Act, No. 21 of 2002, Children and Young Persons Ordinance, No. 48 of 1939 and National Insurance Trust Fund Act, No. 28 of 2006.
It was nothing less than a public flogging.

It couldn’t have come at a worse time for Ranil, already on the cross waiting to be nailed, charged by the joint opposition, in its no-confidence motion against him, to be responsible for the bond scam.
Twelve out of the 14 charges contained in the no-confidence motion against the prime minister deal with the bond swindle. All stem from the original sin, the first charge levelled against the Prime Minister: that of ‘placing the Central Bank under the purview of the Prime Minister with the intention of committing the bond scam.’
Musthapaha: Passes the buck
But does the Prime Minister have the Constitutional right to place the Central Bank under his purview? Or does that constitutional right belong solely to the president? Has the joint opposition dialled the wrong number when it accused Ranil of arrogating the Central Bank to his pocket to make rich his wallet? Or should the phone have rung in the presidential residence at Paget Road, Colombo 7?

According to Local Go vernment and Provincial Councils Minister Faiszer Musthapha, the answer is no. On Tuesday, countering a claim made by Home Affairs Minister Vajira Abeywardana, he said the No-Confidence Motion against Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe affected only the PM and not President Maithripala Sirisena.

Perhaps he should take another look at the constitution. Or read SUNDAY PUNCH of March 4.

Under article 43(2) the President shall on the advice of the prime minister appoint ministers. Under Article 43(3) he does not need to consult the prime minister if he wants to reshuffle his cabinet pack and wishes to make a Jack a King or a Queen a Knave or the Joker the Ace.

When it comes to the appointment of state ministers or deputy ministers the same applies. He shall do so on the advice of the prime minister. But when it comes to determining their assignments and functions as Ministers, he may do so in consultation with the prime minister only if he thinks such consultation necessary.

Or Mr. Musthapha can save himself the trouble of reading constitutional clauses by simply taking note of the President’s actions this week when he stripped the Prime Minister of the Central Bank and other institutions he had assigned to Ranil three years ago and unequivocally demonstrated the principle that the one who has the right to fire is the one who has the right to hire.

Whether the President did so in consultation with the Prime Minister or whether he did so on his own, thinking that such consultation was not necessary as is his constitutional right is beside the point. What matters is that the Central Bank was assigned to the Prime Minister by the president and there is no getting away from that fact.
Thus this Wednesday when the no-confidence motion is brought before Parliament with its first allegation ‘placing the Finance Ministry under the purview of the Prime Minister with the intention of committing the bond scam,’ Sirisena’s head too is on the block. On Friday the former hitman of the Rajapaksa regime who switched his allegiance to Sirisena once the latter was installed in power, Science, Technology and Research Minister Susil Premajayantha announced that the Sri Lanka Freedom Party will vote for the no-confidence motion, moved by the Joint Opposition against Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and called upon Wickremesinghe to resign as Prime Minister.

Premajayantha assured that the SLFP’s current position on the no-confidence motion would not change and that it would be confirmed by the Working Committee before April 4. Addressing the media at the SLFP headquarters in Colombo, Minister Premajayanatha said 12 out of 14 charges against PM Wickremesinghe on the motion tabled in parliament were regarding the Central Bank bond scam and those charges were similar to the outcome of the SLFP appointed bond scam committee report. Therefore, the SLFP MPs did not have any reason to oppose the NCM, he added. Wonder on whose side he is batting now, given his track record of scoring runs for the winning side?

Perhaps, he too, had failed to read the President-appointed Bond Commission’s report which exonerated the Prime Minister and only faulted him in making Arjun Mahendran the Governor of the Central Bank. But Ranil Wicremesinghe had no crystal ball to foretell what the future held when the fateful appointment was made. Neither did the Maithripala Sirisena have power of clairvoyance when he assigned the Central Bank to the Prime Minister’s care and appointed Mahendran as its head. For under the constitution the president appoints the Central Bank Governor. Both fell victim and both must share the blame. Especially the one at whose table the buck finally stops.

The former president Rajapaksa — who did not sign the no-confidence motion he handed over to the Speaker last week along with Dinesh Gunawardena — also chipped in. He said, the no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe would succeed as President Maithripala Sirisena was backing it. But is he? And if he does, will he not be committing political hara kiri?

What did the president achieve by delivering a thundering slap to Ranil by removing the Central Bank from his jurisdiction? If he thought that Ranil was indeed responsible, no matter what his own presidential bond commission said in its conclusive findings, then was action taken three years after the event, akin to closing the stable door after the horse had bolted? And to whose province did he, using his constitutional right with or without consulting the prime minister, to appoint and assign, to hire and fire, hand over the Government’s Banker. To Mangala Samaraweera, a stalwart of the UNP, faithful to his leader Ranil Wickremesinghe.

Do not his advisers tell him that the joint opposition’s no-confidence motion is also an indictment on his presidency by placing the Central Bank under Ranil’s purview and appointing Arjuna as its governor: Both assignment and appointment being his duty and prerogative under the 19th Amendment to the Constitution which he himself introduced and got enacted with a thumping five sixth majority in Parliament. Let’s hail him for that. And weep for his many failures.

For his failure to execute the 2015 mandate the nation gave to him. To bring the crooks to book. Even after the local government poll results shook the government from its slumber, Sirisena slept. On many occasions had he promised to raise his sword to crackdown on corruption. But when the time came for it to be used – when Ranil insisted that a strong man be used for the job, he chose a nerd instead – and sheathed his sword out of fear that the joint opposition spittle will rust it.

As dark clouds gather over the Yahapalana government, with its Prime Minister on the dock and an indecisive President with a death wish waiting in the wings to share the stage, discern the bad moon on the rise for Lanka.

Tomorrow, April 5!

 This is the generation whose first cry of life was the uprising 
- Joseph Brodsky (Soviet and later American Poet)

2018-04-04

Commencing his submissions before the Criminal Justice Commission for defense in arguably the biggest criminal case in Sri  Lanka, the ‘main trial’ (maha naduwa) of leaders of the 1971 insurgency, Rohana Wijeweera said “This is not a plea from an accused to a judge; rather one from a representative of the oppressed class to those of the oppressors.’’

Mr. Wijeweera and his comrades were found guilty and incarcerated for varying periods of time by the commission, yet Supreme Court Justice A.C. Alles, who was one of the commission members, after retirement, dedicated his book titled ‘71 insurrection to Podi Athula, later known as Victor Ivan, who was convicted of high treason and Premawathie Manamperi, the young woman who was brutally murdered by the State for her alleged involvement with the uprising.

A prick of conscience

What makes a Supreme Court Judge dedicate his monumental book on probably the most prominent case he sat in judgment, to two young persons on the other side of the divide? Can a judge who convicted a person for high treason praise him in a subsequent book authored on the momentous events unfolded during the main trial? What made him honour a deceased detainee accused of armed insurrection? The answer lies in the fact that whatever said and done, any reasonable man could not be oblivious to the unjust, oppressive and discriminatory socio-economic-political and moral setup that gives rise to discontent among the downtrodden segments.

On April 5, 1971, the rural Sinhala youth rose up in arms against the centre-left government of Sirimavo Bandaranaike, which was relatively-fresh in power. The timing of the insurrection from the beginning was questionable as the people had not entirely given up hope on the regime at that point. Despite the element of surprise the assault initially had and the seeming paralysis of the State apparatus in responding to the uprising, the State was able to suppress the rebellion and try the leaders for high treason.

Most of the incidents that transpired in April 1971 are well-documented and hardly needs repetition. Yet, the society in general and the policymakers in particular did not seem to fathom the root cause of unrest among the youth as they erupted again in 1989. The point lies elsewhere.

Wijeweera recriminates the system 

Have we created a just society that would leave no room for youth like Wijeweera to claim the society is divided into two segments as oppressors and the oppressed? Do the poor and marginalised really feel they too are part of decision-making in development efforts? Have the lower strata of society reaped the harvest of economic growth albeit we have achieved marginal and material development? Do the youth feel like they too are legitimate contenders for decision-making, not only in the State apparatus but in all spheres that matter?

Today, only a few believe in the classical Marxist Leninist class struggle culminating in armed revolution a la Bolshevik style. Many seem to realise that despite the lure of individual success, the national wealth is firmly concentrated on a few, reducing others to enjoyers of crumbs, yet credulous that they too would be able to partake in the feast one day. That seduces them to pursue individual and selfish goals at the expense of collective good.

When the Criminal Justice Commission punished the insurgency leaders, the underpinning theory was that they could not aspire or conspire to overthrow a government that had been elected by the ballot of the people. In that sense, it seemed the justice system was the champion of people’s sovereignty; as such the penalising seemed rationally-justified. Suppression of encroachers in that manner was supposedly to ensure the sovereignty of people to govern themselves remained as sacrosanct as it was supposed to be.

Naughty children, out!


Since we have punished those unruly individuals like Wijeweera and his ilk, we should now be out of the woods, home and dry, shouldn’t we? Since all the naughty children have been disposed of, the classroom must be so good, isn’t it?
I see the reader sneering sarcastically at my naivety; far from it, I know! The leeches, parasites and vampires, who suck the lifeblood out of Mother Lanka, pose a far greater threat to the sovereignty of the people. They rape the motherland and plunder her mercilessly. They usurp the sanctity people have vested on their representatives. The whole edifice of the State is on the brink of utter pulverization.

Yet, there is no justice commission or any other august forum to champion the cause for the people; a system that roared full throttle to punish the youth of this nation for their trespasses, seems oblivious, nay, puny, timid and tremulous vis-à-vis the grave transgressions of the high and the mighty. The very institutions mandated to uphold the sovereignty of the people have left them to be devoured by these greedy wolves!

No resistance seems to be emanating from any quarter to this all-pervading degradation that has afflicted the State apparatus, the legislative, executive and judicial included. Those who man those institutions enjoy the comforts, pompous aura and luxuries the toiling common man has bestowed on them with their sweat for common good. The politicians, the clergy, the justice system, law enforcement agencies, professionals and the civil service have been reduced to a band of marauders who ravage Mother Lanka on her deathbed, breathing her last.

A nation that crucifies its prophets 

We run hither and thither, helter-skelter for saviours every election in every colour and symbol; only to be frustrated, disappointed and deceived immediately after. We supplicate to deity and the clergy like beggars for some respite. We hope against hope the justice system will do some justice, at least as an after thought or in its leisure.

We all turn our heads in search for the warriors of the Weera Puran Appu mould who would come to rescue Mother Lanka from these parasites and plunderers who have set upon her. Yet, it is all in vain!
A generation that could have stood up to these marauders in high places and in sheep’s cloth is not with us. We have prosecuted, jailed and finally crucified them, long ago. They have burnt in tire pyres and been executed in summary style by State military and para militia.

We have crucified and buried our saviours, and that too, long time ago!

Tomorrow is April 5, citizens! 

US Blocks UN Investigation into Israeli Military Killings in Gaza (pt. 2/2)


As the May 12 deadline for the Iran Nuclear Agreement looms, Trump and his new foreign policy advisors, Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, are determined to toe Netanyahu's line about cancelling the agreement, seeking regime change in Iran, says Col. Larry Wilkerson

image

April 2, 2018

Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Government and Public Policy Lawrence Wilkerson's last positions in government were as Secretary of State Colin Powell's Chief of Staff (2002-05), Associate Director of the State Department's Policy Planning staff under the directorship of Ambassador Richard N. Haass, and member of that staff responsible for East Asia and the Pacific, political-military and legislative affairs (2001-02). Before serving at the State Department, Wilkerson served 31 years in the U.S. Army. During that time, he was a member of the faculty of the U.S. Naval War College (1987 to 1989), Special Assistant to General Powell when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989-93), and Director and Deputy Director of the U.S. Marine Corps War College at Quantico, Virginia (1993-97). Wilkerson retired from active service in 1997 as a colonel, and began work as an advisor to General Powell. He has also taught national security affairs in the Honors Program at the George Washington University. He is currently working on a book about the first George W. Bush administration.

SHARMINI PERIES: Welcome back to The Real News Network. I'm Sharmini Peries in conversation with Col. Larry Wilkerson, who is former chief of staff to the Secretary of State Colin Powell, now a distinguished professor at the College of William and Mary. Thank you so much for joining us today, Larry.
LARRY WILKERSON: Thanks for having me back, Sharmini.
SHARMINI PERIES: All right, Larry, let's take a look at the Iran Nuclear Agreement, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the GCPOA. This is another example of Trump's closeness to Israel, supporting Israel's effort to terminate the agreement against the resistance and pushback from Europe's cosigners, the UK, France, and Germany. What is the largest strategic objective on the part of the U.S., the Trump administration, and Netanyahu in terms of undermining the agreement, and what are their greatest hopes in the region that they're trying to achieve?
LARRY WILKERSON: Let's look at it from the positive side, Sharmini. What we should do is adhere to the agreement, the nuclear agreement. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. We should adhere to it, just as the Germans and the French and the British and all the others, Russia, China, are doing. And just as Iran is doing. Iran is in full compliance. There is probably a 1 percent chance that any of this could be untrue. I'm willing to bet on the 99 percent that says it is true.
If that continues we can certainly arrive at a point where the great negotiating skills of the great TV star Donald Trump could be employed to go further and take care of some of the concerns, and in some respects they are genuine concerns, that people have over this agreement, such as the 15 year point, the 20 four point, 25 year point, and so forth. Those concerns could be talked about and dealt with, and in the meantime, too, you could talk about other issues, like ballistic missiles, like support for terrorism. Though you've got to open parentheses there and say the largest supporter for terrorism in the world is Saudi Arabia, close those parentheses. Need to do something about that, too, United States. And you could probably get to a point where the situation in the Persian Gulf was calmed down, manageable, settle Syria and some of the other problems at the same time. We might return to a modicum of stability and possibly prospects for this region's peace.
But here's what I think is happening. I think Mr. Netanyahu, and interest interestingly enough, much of his security establishment disagrees, some of them vehemently, with Netanyahu's policy. I think he's stuck on his own petard. He has to, one, have an enemy. He has to have an other, and Iran fills that role for him in order to stay in political power. And number two, he has to have someone whom the United States can bait in order to make it look like the relationship between Washington and Tel Aviv is as solid as ever. And in order to make it look like the first policy that I've just enumerated is working. That is to say he needs an other and he needs a superpower around him to face that other. Doesn't matter that the other is not a real threat. It just matters that it is in the perception of Israelis and more or less a majority of Americans.
So what they're trying to do by that policy is not only eventually get to the point where they unseat the regime in Iran, but also keep perturbated and in turmoil and chaos the majority of the Arab world. And particularly that Arab world lives from roughly Beirut down through Damascus over to Aden. They want that world incapable of coalescing even as a single state, but certainly as a group of states, and threatening Israel. Meanwhile, while that chaos is going on, Israel will make hay. They will do all that they need to do to consolidate their brutal occupation of the West Bank, their now occupation of more territory in the Golan, and probably even extend their perimeters elsewhere to include, of course, as we've already seen, Jerusalem as their capital.
So that's the Netanyahu strategy. Now, you asked me if Donald Trump is aware of all this, and if I said yes I'd have to give him a lot more credit than I'm willing to do. What Donald Trump is aware of is he knows how to play the base he has in this country like Anne Sophie Mutter plays Mozart. And that's what he's doing. He has no comprehension, in my fullest expectation of his intelligence, he has no expectation, realization, even intuition of what's going on in Israel. He's just following the street map required for his domestic base to stay resilient and more or less in support of him.
So we're marching towards this denouement, whatever it might be, in the Middle East with him pulling troops out of Syria, putting new American bases in Israel, telling us Netanyahu can do whatever the hell he wants to do and so forth all simultaneously. It looks like a really broken dysfunctional foreign policy because it is.
SHARMINI PERIES: Larry, according to the New York Times report this weekend, the head of the Israeli military, Gen. Gadi Eizenkot, had reported that Iran is actually full compliance of the nuclear agreement. So there appears to be a rift between the Israeli military and Netanyahu. What do you make of this?
LARRY WILKERSON: Sharmini, I've always found, well, let me back up. I've not always found, but most of the time I have found that Israeli generals, and officers in particular in the IDF, and for that matter Shin Bet, Mossad, are pretty sharp. And when we were working on the nuclear agreement, we, a much larger group trying to help President Obama largely with the U.S. Congress in getting the nuclear agreement through the wickets it had to go through, we talked to former national security advisers, to generals, to admirals, to Air Force generals. We talked to the security establishment in Israel extensively. By and large we found that they were, some of them reluctantly, some of them less than reluctantly, in favor of the deal. And once it was looking as if it were going to go through they, many of them, dropped their reluctance and said, OK, this is not a bad deal. Let's face it, we've gone from maybe 30 to 45 days warning of a breakout to over a year's warning. We can live with that. And oh, by the way, we trust the IAEA and all of this very rigorous inspection regime to do what it says it can do. And so we're maybe a little worried at 15 years, we're maybe a little worried when 19000 or more centrifuges maybe start spinning again and so forth, but we can deal with that. We can deal with that. In the meantime we're kind of happy with this deal. It's probably the best thing. We knew also that some of these people, especially the ones on active duty, were telling this upward to Avigdor Lieberman, although it was a different defense minister at that time. But now Avigdor Lieberman, and to Bibi Netanyahu.
So this is a real disconnect, politically and militarily. I think there may be a real problem for this much-embattled prime minister. He's, after all, being hounded by the courts, and Israeli courts are usually pretty good hound dogs, and the military. So we should watch this very carefully. At any moment that kind of fracturing could cause them some problems. I don't expect it, but it could. And you put your finger on another element in this very, very difficult region, very, very difficult situation in the U.S.-Israeli relationship, that worries me. The most competent element in Israel in terms of its security is the IDF, and we're doing some things to the IDF that we probably shouldn't be doing.
Not least of which, Sharmini, is the clamp down. For example, I didn't know about this until Gideon Levy and some others told me about it a recent conference. You're familiar with the Breaking the Silence. That was about 650-700 Israeli Defense Force officers, NCOs, and others who had come out to just that, break the silence, and tell about some of the things the IDF was having to do in the West Bank and Gaza and so forth that truly revolted some of them, made them feel, disturbed their consciences, made made them feel lower than life. I mean, really badly. Well they clamped down on them now. Netanyahu's government now is so draconian and so authoritarian that none of those people dare speak up anymore. Not only their careers and maybe their livelihoods endangered, maybe even their lives are in danger. So that's how difficult it has become to be a dissenter, to be a true patriot, to be someone who wants to speak the truth to power in Israel.
This is a very dangerous situation for Israel as well as for the United States in its connection with that situation. So I don't, I'm not very optimistic about the situation.
SHARMINI PERIES: Thank you so much for joining us, Larry. There's so much more to explore here. But I think the point you made about the ways in which the U.S. could, if they would manage this situation in a way that is far more peace-oriented, resolution-oriented. and we should discuss that as a segment of its own. I think it would really help certain people in the international community to have somebody like you advising them about the ways in which they can go about demanding some justice to what's going on between Israel, Palestine, and the U.S. participation in it. Thank you so much.
LARRY WILKERSON: It's a very tough situation, a very complex situation. Yet if one examines it closely, it is subject to being bettered, being ameliorated, being fixed, if you will. But the key ingredient is the United States, and I just don't see any inclination to be that ingredient.
SHARMINI PERIES: All right, Larry. Thank you so much for joining us today.
LARRY WILKERSON: Thanks for having me, Sharmini.
SHARMINI PERIES: And thank you for joining us here on the Real News Network.

Not one Democrat has defended Israel over Gaza massacre

A boy waves a Palestinian flag, among thousands taking part in a Great March of Return rally along Gaza’s boundary with Israel, east of Jabaliya, 30 March. Israeli snipers opened fire on protesters all along the boundary, killing 14 that day and injuring 1,400 others.
 Ramez HabboubAPA images
Ali Abunimah- 4 April 2018
There’s been a lot of online commentary about how so few members of Congress have criticized Israel’s premeditated massacre of civilian demonstrators in the besieged Gaza Strip last Friday.
Just three have done so on Twitter and one did so through an aide.
But here’s another remarkable fact that has not been noted: as far as The Electronic Intifada can determine, not one Democrat in the House or Senate has spoken up – at least on Twitter – to defend Israel’s actions.
This may reflect a recognition among Democratic leaders of how toxic Israel is becoming to a large segment of the party’s base.
In the bloodiest day since Israel’s 2014 assault on Gaza, Israeli forces killed 18 Palestinians on 30 March, including 14 protesters taking part in Great March of Return rallies near the Gaza-Israel boundary.
About 1,400 more were injured, including 800 by live ammunition. A Human Rights Watch investigationcondemned the killings of protesters as “calculated” and warned Israeli leaders that they could face prosecution in international courts for the illegal attacks on unarmed civilians who posed no danger whatsoever.
Widely circulated videos show Israeli soldiers shooting down unarmed protesters.
With more marches planned by Palestinians in coming weeks, Israeli human rights group B’Tselem has published ads in Israeli media urging soldiers to disobey patently illegal orders to shoot at unarmed demonstrators.
We are publishing newspaper ads in Israel captioned “Sorry Commander, I cannot shoot” clarifying to soldiers that they must refuse to open fire on unarmed demonstrators in Gaza. This unusual step is following Friday’s events, when soldiers used live fire & killed 12 Palestinians

Congressional silence

On Monday, Said Arikat, the Washington correspondent of the Palestinian newspaper Alqudsreported that Senator Bernie Sanders was the only one of 535 US lawmakers to criticize Israel’s actions.


But Vermont’s Sanders was then followed by representatives Betty McCollum of Minnesota and Barbara Lee of California.

Read More

African asylum seekers in limbo as Israel considers new relocation plans


After the Israeli government’s lightning-speed about-face, confusion abounds regarding fate of African migrants

African migrants demonstrate against forced deportation in Herzliya, Israel, on 7 February (AFP)

Wednesday 4 April 2018
The chaos that has followed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's announcement on Monday of a landmark plan in conjunction with UN refugee agency UNHCR to relocate African migrants – only to put the deal on hold less than a day later – continued to leave asylum seekers and their defenders in the dark about their fate, as the Israeli government reportedly informed the Supreme Court on Wednesday that alternatives were wearing thin.
The UNHCR plan was intended to relocate 16,250 African asylum seekers to Western countries, in exchange for granting temporary residency status to an equal number of migrants in Israel. However, Netanyahu's far-right allies emphatically denounced the plan, prompting the prime minister to swiftly backtrack.
The government seemed to be considering reverting to its previous highly contested plan to give some 38,000 undocumented African migrants the choice between indefinite imprisonment with eventual forced expulsion, or a $3,500 payment and a plane ticket back to their home countries or to a third-party African state.
African migrants lean at the fence of the Holot detention centre in Israel's southern Negev Desert in February 2014 (AFP)
However, the Jerusalem Post reported on Wednesday that the government had informed the Israeli Supreme Court that Rwanda would no longer be considered as an eligible country to receive deported asylum seekers, the majority of whom come from Sudan and Eritrea.
Meanwhile, Uganda, which was widely understood to be the second African country with which Israel had struck an agreement to receive African migrants, has repeatedly denied having any formal or informal understanding with Israel on the topic – in spite of reports dating as far back as 2013 that a deal had been made for Uganda to accept migrants in exchange for modest sums of money.
The Jerusalem Post went on to report that if a suitable alternative to Rwanda was not found, some asylum seekers who had been detained would be released from prison – a scenario that seems unlikely to be positively received by Israel’s influential far-right parties.

'Illegal infiltrators'

The migrants' presence in Israel has become a political issue, with Netanyahu having referred to them in the past as "not refugees but illegal infiltrators", and blaming them for posing a threat to Israel’s social fabric and Jewish character.
Education Minister Naftali Bennett, who hails from the extreme right-wing Jewish Home party, had blasted the deal with UNHCR on social media as a “complete capitulation” which would "turn Israel into a paradise for infiltrators.”
Israel’s deportation plan to Africa had been denounced by rights groups and asylum seekers alike, as Hotline for Refugees and Migrants, an NGO based in Israel, found that hundreds of African asylum seekers deported "willingly" from Israel had died in torture camps in Libya or drowned at sea.
Read more ►
Rights groups advocating on behalf of migrants had challenged the deportation plan in front of Israel's Supreme Court, which on 15 March issued a temporary order that froze its implementation.
Observers have been left guessing as to what could have pushed Netanyahu to put himself in such a quagmire, with Haaretz columnist Yossi Verter hypothesising on Wednesday that the announcement of a UNHCR deal could have served “to win points with the judicial system” just as Netanyahu and Interior Minister Aryeh Deri face a number of corruption charges, by publicly siding with the Supreme Court’s stance on forced expulsions, only to later blame Israeli public outrage to back out of the deal.
“Perhaps they wanted to signal to the judicial system that they are the responsible adults, capable of taking decisions that are contrary to their own interests and to the emotions of their voters,” Verter wrote.

Lives in limbo

Simultaneously, Netanyahu blamed liberal NGO the New Israel Fund (NIF) on Tuesday for torpedoing the deportation agreement with Rwanda, an accusation the group has denied, and said he had called for a parliamentary inquiry into the organisation for “jeopardis(ing) the security and future of the State of Israel as the country of the Jewish people”.
“(Netanyahu) lashes out to deflect attention from his own morally bankrupt choices,” NIF CEO Daniel Sokatch said in a statement on Tuesday.
African migrants wait in line for the opening of the Population and Immigration Authority office in Bnei Brak, Israel (Reuters)
“This week, for a brief moment, we celebrated a victory for the 37,000 people who are seeking asylum in Israel and who deserve the right to live their lives and raise their families in peace. Then the Prime Minister backtracked, leaving their lives in limbo. And now he’s blaming us.”
A number of Israeli and foreign Jews have pointed out the disturbing irony of Netanyahu scrapping a plan for asylum seekers in the middle of the Jewish holiday of Passover, which commemorates the Biblical exodus of Israelites from ancient Egypt.
Some supporters of NIF and asylum seekers have shared pictures on social media with the hashtag #NoMoreMaror, in reference to the bitter herb consumed during Passover seders as a symbol of the bitterness of slavery and exile.
According to Interior Ministry figures, there are currently some 42,000 African migrants in Israel, half of them children, women or men with families who are not facing immediate deportation.
Some migrants have lived in Israel for years and work in low-paying jobs that many Israelis shun. Israel has granted asylum to fewer than one percent of those who have applied and has a years-long backlog of applicants.
Many migrants say they came to Israel to seek asylum after fleeing persecution, conflict, and in the case of Eritreans, forced, lifelong conscription to its army, but Israeli authorities regard them as economic migrants.
Most arrived in Israel in the second half of the last decade, crossing from Egypt before the route was sealed. Israel uses the term "infiltrators" to describe people who did not enter the country through an official border crossing.
A fence Israel has built over the past few years along its border with Egypt has all but stopped African migrants from entering the country illegally. Since 2005, prior to which the border had been porous, a total of 64,000 Africans had made it to Israel, although thousands have since left.