Peace for the World

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

Saturday, September 22, 2018

SL foreign diplomatic officer who shamelessly disgraced the country..! More details …..


LEN logo(Lanka e News – 22.Sep.2018, 11.30PM) An officer of the Sri Lanka’s foreign service was arrested on the 15 th at Malpenza airport , Milano ,Italy when he tried to smuggle into Italy four youths ( 2 males and 2 females) from Sri Lanka , it was reported. The Italian media reported that the Sri Lankan foreign service officer was arrested , and others were repatriated. Undoubtedly this caused a huge black stain on the reputation of our foreign service . This person's name is Ibra Lebbe Hadji Jameel
Our Bureau of Foreign employment (SLBFE) has issued a communique in this connection ….
‘Based on a fax message sent on 2018.09.17 by the SL Consul General office in Milan , Italy , to the foreign affairs ministry , a Sri Lankan was arrested at the Airport of that country. This information was conveyed along with copies of his passport and driving license. The foreign affairs ministry had passed this information to the SL Foreign employment Bureau on 2018.09.18
Following inquiries it has come to light ,that arrested officer is an employee at the SL Bureau of foreign employment , and he is now detained at Barstow prison in Italy .An officer of the SL Consul General office in Milan has gone to inquire into the matter on 2018.09.17, reports say.
This officer who was arrested had served as a diplomatic officer in Jordan and Lebanon between 2012 August and 2015 February . He , his wife and children have therefore been issued diplomatic passports.
After he returned to the Island in February 2015, his diplomatic passport was cancelled by the Immigration and emigration department . Again in July 2015, he had obtained an official passport. His wife and three children had obtained ordinary passports in August 2016 , it is learnt .
According to information unearthed so far , the officer in custody has gone overseas on 2018- 09-07 . However he has not obtained the due permission from the Bureau or the relevant ministry . In the circumstances , the SL foreign employment Bureau has decided to interdict the officer and institute disciplinary proceedings against him.’ the SLBFE communique revealed .
---------------------------
by     (2018-09-22 19:07:28)

Russian Warship Deal Resurfaces Due To Sirisena’s Unusual Intervention To Protect Ravi



Although four days have elapsed after the Mexican National Day, Chief of Defence Staff Admiral Ravindra Wijegunaratne, who left the shores to attend the event on behalf of President Maithripala Sirisena, has still not returned to the country.

Wijegunaratne left the country last week, under Sirisena’s blessings, despite a high-profile investigation against him for allowing Chandana Hettiarachchi alias Navy Sampath, the main suspect of the abductions and murders of eleven youth, to evade Police arrest.
It is now clear that Wijegunaratne, the most senior active military officer in the service, will not be arrested by the CID, due to Sirisena’s intervention.
Sirisena, who is also the Defence Minister overlooking armed forces, has ordered the CID to refrain from arresting any senior Army officer, and file legal action against them if they are involved in any wrongdoing. ‘
The order has been given to the CID despite the opposition of several senior Cabinet Ministers, including Health Minister Rajitha Senaratne, a closest ally of Sirisena, and Finance and Media Minister Mangala Samaraweera.
Sirisena almost stormed out of the special Cabinet meeting he summoned over the matter, last week, when Senaratne said the President should take the blame for “protecting criminals and murderers”.
What remains a hot topic in the political circles is the reason behind President Sirisena’s unusual intervention to protect Wijegunaratne despite serious allegations against him. In addition to summoning the Police Chief and senior CID officers, Sirisena also went on to convene a special Cabinet meeting last week, to prevent the Police from arresting Wijegunaratne.
Suspicions have now been raised whether Sirisena’s unconditional backing of Wijegunaratne is due to the latter’s involvement in purchasing of a Russian warship for double the price of its actual value, through a Rs. 20 billion deal with Russia’s war machinery, JSC Rosoboronexport .
Wijegunaratne ascended to the position of Navy Commander as his predecessor, Admiral Travis Sinnaiah, was forced to retire by Sirisena due to his opposition to the purchase of the Russian ship.
President Maithripala Sirisena and his closest associates, including some of his family members, were pushing hard for this deal and Sinnaiah, to them, was a stumbling block. It was Wijegunaratne who took over the post after Sinnaiah and cleared the path for the Russian deal.

Read More

Little traction in assassination allegation in Sri lanka

The IGP has demonstrated on several occasions that he is somewhat of a joker (morning meditation for policemen, showing perahera participants how to dance) has been attacked by the JO but defended by the UNP.

by Manik de Silva- 
( September 23, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) President Maithripala Sirisena left for New York yesterday to attend the UN General Assembly sessions which customarily attracts leaders from small and big countries all over the world without any major developments in the explosive story published some days ago about an alleged attempt by a senior police officer heading the Terrorist Investigation Division (TID) to assassinate both the president and former Defense Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. The story failed to gain the traction that such sensational allegations could normally be expected to do, probably because of the credibility (or the lack of it) of the person making the allegation. Whether anything more concrete will emerge by the time the president returns from the U.S. remain to be seen.
The first official reaction was at best lukewarm with law enforcers showing little interest in arresting DIG Nalaka Silva, the alleged perpetrator of the conspiracy. He was later transferred out of the TID to a less sensitive department in the police before he was sent on compulsory leave, probably at the behest of higher authorities. According to what veteran leftist MP Vasudeva Nanayakkara told parliament, the DIG was a close associate of the IGP who had recently accompanied him to a Bodhi Pooja at the Kelaniya temple.
Whistle blower Namal Kumara was a paid police informant doubling as an anti corruption activist. He summoned a press conference in Kandy where he played what he claimed were recordings of telephone conversations between the DIG and himself. Transcripts of these, or excerpts thereof, have been published in various media. It appeared the voice clips were of recordings of a conversation (or conversations) between a policeman and his informant with nothing direct on an assassination plot. That a senior police officer would tell a stool pigeon such dark secrets as these would seem incredible to most people. There had been no official word at the time of writing whether CID investigators assigned to the case have established whether the recordings are authentic although expertise of the Government Analyst’s Department and the Moratuwa University had been reportedly sought. It is fairly well known that the DIG, though close to the IGP, is not very popular among his senior colleagues with allegations made some time ago that the phones of some senior cops had been tapped by an agency under him.
If the assassination story is true, it is interesting that the targets were the president and the former defense secretary both of whom are considered likely runners at the next presidential race. Although Sirisena went on record in the first speech he made at Independence Square after taking his oath of office that he will not run for a second term, he seems to have changed his mind. While he has not directly announced his candidature, various proxies from the SLFP he leads have said that he will run and he has not denied such claims choosing to maintain an eloquent silence. There have been many attempts by personages from the Sirisena faction of the SLFP to mend fences with the Joint Opposition and possibly make some kind of deal. The possible contenders in the big race at the end of next year are all playing their hands close to their chests. Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, like the president, has not declared his candidature though his loyalists have said he will be the green candidate. The former president who is pushing for an early election said as recently as yesterday that his party must decide on a candidate and one of his brothers might seek the ticket.
The IGP has demonstrated on several occasions that he is somewhat of a joker (morning meditation for policemen, showing perahera participants how to dance) has been attacked by the JO but defended by the UNP. The greens called a press conference at Sri Kotha on Friday where Law and Order Minister Ranjith Madduma Bandara and his deputy defended the IGP’s work record. Yesterday’s The Island encapsulated what was said there neatly with the front page headline “IGP not so bad though he ‘danced’ a bit.” While the CID is investigating the assassination allegation, the IGP’s conduct is being examined by a committee of officials from the Ministries of Public Administration and Management and Law and Order. These portfolios are under the UNP. Only the blind will be oblivious to the shadow boxing now going on between the president and his prime minister. Sirisena seems to have forgotten that it was the UNP that made it possible for him to be elected president. Ranil Wickremesinghe seems to be ignoring the reality that he could not have won the race himself and a common candidate was essential to topple Mahinda Rajapaksa. There is no effort at even sustaining a façade of unity at least until the election with the partners of the ruling coalition openly undermining each other. That will no neither side any good.
Manik de Silva is the editor of the Sunday Island, a Colombo based weekly newspaper where this piece first appeared as an editorial 

HDI stats: SL ranked 76th out of 189 nations


RANMINI GUNASEKARA- SEP 21 2018

Sri Lanka has been ranked 76 out of 189 countries with a Human Development value of 0.770 in the 2018 statistical update of the Human Development Index (HDI). However, according to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) when this value is adjusted for inequality it falls up to 0.664, with a loss of 13.8 per cent.

Nevertheless, this loss due to inequality is not sufficient enough to impact Sri Lanka’s overall rank in the HDI. Data further shows that Sri Lanka’s inequality in income is 21 per cent, whilst its inequality in education and life expectancy is 12.8 per cent (%) and 7.1% respectively.

Sri Lanka’s overall HDI of 0.770 is considered above average, and the country falls under the ‘High Human Development’ tier. Countries coming closest to Sri Lanka from the South Asian region are India and Pakistan – which have been ranked 130 and 150 in the HDI respectively. Meanwhile, when adjusted for inequality, India and Pakistan show losses of 26.8 per cent and 31 per cent respectively.

According to the overall results, Norway, Switzerland, and Australia have secured the first, second, and third place in the HDI – with values of 0.953, 0.944, and 0.939 respectively.

The HDI is a combination of life expectancy, education, and per capita income indicators that are used to rank countries into four tiers of Human Development.

A heterodox theoretical model of Rajapaksa Populism

The global Alt-Right to Alt-Left spectrum is a landscape, not a linear progression

article_image
Kumar David-
 
Neo-populism is a disturbing political upsurge of recent times. With some embarrassment (fathering ‘Single-Issue Common-Candidate’ was notoriety enough) I admit to being one of the first, and surely the first in Lanka to flag neo-populism as an ubiquitous new phenomenon of 21-C. But it is crucial to appreciate that it cannot be laid out as a linear progression from fascism at one end to left zealotry at the other, with jihadism, racism, enmity to immigrants, alienation of the 99% by the rich and powerful, and radical feminism, as intermediate markers. The pageant is not a line-show, it is a jumbled landscape where indeed there is a socio-economic spectrum. For example, unhealthy anti-immigrant nationalism (difficult to separate from racism) may in one place partner with worker’s misery, and in another place cultural hubris may be an outlet for frustration at a hopeless future. The left-right calibration overlaps and underlaps other dimensions in complicated ways.
 
Trump’s base embraces the traditional, industrial, white working class (Is Marx fulminating in his grave?); the inappropriately named Sweden Democrats have spawned in a country fabled for its tolerance, liberalism and welfarism; Marine Le Pen’s National Front is a French working-class party. And to go on, Britain’s Labour Party stands on two legs; radicalised educated youth who some would call middle-class, and the traditional working class now fraying towards xenophobic Brexit and anti-immigrant UKIP. What we have is not only left-right affinities but also attitudes to liberalism, nationalism, race, LGBT and free-markets, not rigidly determined by left-right colouration. However, none of these neo-pop concoctions are fascist in the proper sense as was the all-pulverising interwar fascism of Mussolini, Hitler and Franco. The social preconditions for a throw-back to classical fascism do not now exist. What does materialise on occasion is a military dictatorship a la Pinochet, compliments of the CIA. 
 
The fraying of the European project is neo-populism ‘gift’ to unity. Liberal French President Emmanuel Macron, alt-right Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini, and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban who detests core liberal values, are totem poles dividing the EU canvas into domains. The differences pertain not only to an ideological miscellany but also map out different institutional paradigms for the future of Europe. Macron wants more Europe – closer unification and tighter EU-wide institutions, a Napoleonic vision. For Salvini it is “Make Italy Great Again!” He is determined to deport hundreds of thousands of refugees and will rather let boats sink and migrants drown than permit illicit vessels to berth. He supports Brexit and if he had his way will steer Italy to ‘Itxit’. Orban (Poland is close behind) is for a Christian state, doublespeak for anti-Muslim. The Sargentini Report on the basis of which ‘disciplinary action’ was imposed on Hungary (the first time in EU history) accused Orban’s Alt-Right regime of breaching the core liberal values of judicial independence, religious tolerance, press freedom and individual rights. 
 
 Liberal Europe fears that the Alt-Right is hell bent on an internal takeover of the EU project and plotting to turn Europe into an association of authoritarian states. On an institutional canvas the established structures of liberal internationalism are being dismantled in the West. Trump jettisoned the Paris Climate Accord, dumped NAFTA and TPP, threw NATO into confusion, plans to take the US out of the WTO, broke ranks on the Iran nuclear deal and makes mind boggling threats against the judges of the International Criminal Court. British populism’s Brexit is the first fracture of the EU. An incongruous right-left alliance of Italian populists is in the early stages of blowing the EU project into fragments. The point is that neo-populism is not only threatening domestic institutions, it is also tearing apart international institutional structures fashioned over half a century since the end of WW2.
 
 Furthermore, think Trump in the long term after the cyclical economic upturn cools and the soda bottle fizz of tax cuts and trade wars turns sour. The present upturn in the US economy will be short lived; too much of a good thing, like drowning in whisky. Every (literally) knowledgeable commentator agrees that the debt crisis will implode. A fortnight ago I wrote in this column that the single most troubling disorder of capitalisms ward-full of ailments, the global debt-spiral, is spinning out of control. The next Minsky Moment will soon be upon us. Professor Martin Feldstein, President of the US National Bureau of Economic Research described today’s bleak scenario as “more akin to the depressions of the1870s or 1930s than anything experienced in the post-War era”.
 
 I have hardly scratched the surface of global neo-populism nor have I mentioned Philippine mad hatter Duterte, Brazil’s bring-back-the-Generals Bolsonaro, the Muslim-hating Hindutva RSS-BJP combine, and other such cave dwellers. A fuller coverage would require an essay in its own right. My motive today is to sketch a global overview to help locate Rajapaksa Populism. This does not imply predictions about elections yet to come, though the fire in the chest of Rajapaksa Populists is hubris that forthcoming elections are theirs to win. 
 
 Mahinda is a mass phenomenon; his party has no policy and no programme but it has a larger than life leader. You can ridicule it as cardboard, but so were famous and infamous ogres of the past. The bottom line is that the poropoya mass adores its leader. A plunge in electoral confidence in the government has encouraged it. But a bloated rallying point and a feeble government do not alone make for success. There have to be ideological, social and economic roots to boot. 
 
 With populism ideology and myth come first. All populisms are obsessed with some all-consuming tunnel vision storyline. In the case of Rajapaksa Populism (RP), the strands that intertwine and converge to a focus are; “the proposed separatist constitution”, “the betrayal of war-heroes”, “sacrilegious persecution and imprisonment of Buddhist monks” and “lurking terrorism in the North”. Intertwined they evoke a single vision; bigotry on which masses feed and politicians breed. Like immigration in Sweden, threats to Christian values in Hungary and Poland, Mexicans at the US border, all roads and tweets lead to a Rome. A tunnel vision of perceived threats to the Sinhala-Buddhist ethos is the life-giving elixir of Rajapaksa Populism, the emotional opium empowering it. 
 
 Where does RP fit on a Left-Right scale? The answer is not straightforward and readers of this column are not much interested in heavy doses of class analysis. In any case I have been at pains in the introduction to say that with modern neo-populism, superficially linear left-right placements are theoretically insufficient. Unhealthy racism, proclivity to despotism and scant regard for institutions (judiciary, press, police independence and parliament) locate Rajapaksa, Orban, Duterte or Ortega (Nicaragua) in a multi-dimensional landscape each of its own.
 
 Having said this, there is no denying that the UNP government is seen as rightist in economic orientation. The Ranil-Charitha-Malik-Eran-Harsha axis constitutes the apex of capitalist economic thought in Lanka. I do not say this to denigrate but as candid description. This apex carries the genes of its origin in the womb of JR neoliberalism. True the travails of globalisation, world capitalisms inability to invest abroad and the profound influence of China have brought behavioural changes in the UNP leadership, but the leopard retains its ideological spots. 
 
 In the eyes of the adoring masses Rajapaksa is socialist, anti-imperialist and authentically nationalist; the government is capitalist and pro-Western. That Lanka’s elite and the UNP leaders communicate in English while the JO and Rajapaksa clansmen, with few exceptions, struggle to do so, settles it emotionally.
 
Rajapaksa Populism is intrinsically hostile to internationalism and its institutions. The abhorrence of international (and domestic) human rights movements and institutions of course has another dimension; the fallout from the racist civil war. But apart from this, there is an instinctive insularity and animus to trade pacts with Singapore, India, even China. Furthermore, ignorance and cultural insularity, that is an overarching troglodyte syndrome, is populisms daily diet. 
 
Yahapalana’s alleged genuflection to imperialism and Rajapaksa’s stalwart ant-imperialism is the fiction which the Dead-Left employs to hide its opportunism and humiliating absence of identity. There was a time when we thought Vasu would be NM’s heir, not intellectually but at least a proud bearer of the left torch in the public domain. Who would have in those days foreseen that he would shame us all kowtowing before a mere Mahinda Rajapaksa! However, the point here is not the incident, but that the incident it is symptomatic of the decline of the left in the face of a neo-populist tide. 
 
 What is to be done? This is not the time to wring one’s hands with mere verbal denunciations of neo-Populism and the Dead-Left. Censure must be for the purpose of preparing for well thought out and well-defined action. I have repeatedly called for left unity and an alliance with willing liberals if any can be found. Not much progress has been made, but there is no alternative. After the February debacle Ranil backed off from love-capitalism economics which failed to promote growth and locked the country into stasis. The government should play an active and interventionist role in creating conditions and building institutions that increase investment and economic activity for private-public partnerships (foreign), entrepreneurial ventures (capitalist) and state infrastructure. The UNP is pathologically unfit for this and Rajapaksa Populism has no conception, policy, plans or clue. In that context other lines of attack and mobilisation are needed. In the interim dealing with powers that be is unavoidable since politics is the art of the possible.
 Note to Editor: The NM-JR photo is well known. The photo on the right was published in the Virakesari and can be accessed on the web at:
 https://www.google.lk/search?q=vasudeva+nanayakkara&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiEmaWfr7rdAhVIv48KHWlMDHEQ_AUICigB&biw=1080&bih=458#imgrc=g4fKQe7w4sZE8M

Two hoodlums Weerawansa and Prasanna notorious for making August assembly a bedlam suspended !


LEN logo(Lanka e News – 22.Sep.2018, 11.30PM) Two notorious rowdies Wimal Weerawansa and Prasanna Ranaweera who call themselves as honorable members of parliament shamelessly , but best known for their worst hooliganism within parliament were suspended by the Parliament privileges committee over their disgraceful conduct in parliament on July 3 rd. These are the hoodlums who make the August assembly a bedlam .
HoodlumWeerawansa was suspended from sittings for two weeks while the other hoodlum Prasanna Ranaweera was suspended for four weeks.
The resolution of the privileges committee to punish them was tabled in parliament by the leader of the house…..
Hon. Speaker , in accordance with the recommendations made in the first report of the select committee on code of ethics and privileges tabled in parliament on 2018 -09-05 , under the parliamentary standing order 77(3) , I am tabling the resolution in favor of the temporary suspension of the services of Prasanna Ranaweera M.P. for four weeks ,
Hon. Speaker , in accordance with the recommendations made in the first report of the select committee on code of ethics and privileges tabled in parliament on 2018 -09-05 , under the parliamentary standing order 77(1) , I am tabling the resolution for the temporary suspension of the services of Wimal Weerawansa M.P. for two weeks.
There were 41 votes for and 21 votes against the suspension of Prasanna Ranaweera , and 39 votes for and 21 votes against the suspension of Wimal Weerawansa . Accordingly these two hooligan M.P.s cannot participate in any parliamentary affairs and proceedings from 21st during the period of suspension .
These two rowdy M.P.s who shamelessly call themselves as people’s representatives insulted the speaker earlier on by describing him as ‘Lonttha pol’ . The video footage hereunder shows how these two scoundrels conducted themselves most indecently even disregarding parliamentary decorum 


---------------------------
by     (2018-09-22 18:57:03)

Friday, September 21, 2018

Palestinians were never at the table


The Oslo accords turned out to be unworkable suberfuge serving only the stronger party: Israel.
Gary HershornReuters
Omar Karmi-20 September 2018
This month marks the 25th anniversary of the beginning of the Oslo accords and the signing of the Declaration of Principles in Washington in 1993.
The accords were touted as the only way to reach a permanent peace between Palestinians and Israelis based on the “principles” of mutual recognition and “land for peace.”
An agreement was presented as one where Palestinians would end up enjoying freedom and self-determination on their own territory. What that territory would be in law, as well as the status of Jerusalem and a resolution to the plight of Palestinian refugees, would be addressed over five years of negotiations that were to culminate in 1998.
It was hoped that during this time, mutual trust and confidence-building measures would generate enough momentum to ensure that a final settlement would be unstoppable.
Not only did it not happen, it all turned out to be unworkable subterfuge.

Obfuscation

Largely, the problem was the negotiating part. The process was deliberately set out with no sense of what a final agreement would actually look like. That way, both parties could claim that they were not compromising fundamental principles. This became known as “constructive ambiguity,” a phrase suggesting that obfuscating fundamental issues would help prepare public opinion for the “painful compromises” that lay ahead.
But it was simply obfuscation and it served only the stronger party.
Both sides had been quite clear about what they wanted. The Palestine Liberation Organization – which had secured just one achievement from the Declaration of Principles document: formal recognition as the Palestinian representative – wanted a state with full sovereignty on all the territory of the West Bank and Gaza occupied by Israel in 1967, allowing for minor territorial adjustments on a 1 to 1 basis.
East Jerusalem would be its capital.
As for the right of return of refugees, the PLO was always more malleable, settling on a “just resolution,” a position that became more and more flexible as time wore on.
Israel was equally unequivocal: there was no talk of statehood for Palestinians, only self-rule. Israel would retain the vast majority of existing settlements and control over international borders, airspace and water resources, all seen as national security interests.
Jerusalem would remain Israel’s “eternal, undivided capital,” and any mention of a right of return of Palestinian refugees was a non-starter.
Constructive ambiguity also meant that while the parties were free to assert their respective priorities to the media, the document they signed used only the language of lowest common denominators. In other words, the Declaration of Principles was set out on Israel’s terms.
Thus, there was no mention of Palestinian statehood, no mention of Palestinian sovereignty, and no mention of refugee rights. Jerusalem, refugees and borders were simply issues to be discussed in negotiations and to be resolved along the precepts of the famously vague UN Security Council Resolution 242 that talks of an Israeli withdrawal from “territories occupied” (not the occupied territories, thus leaving their definition inexact) and a “just settlement” to the refugee issue, without specifying.

Never at the table

What this did was legitimize the Israeli occupation: Once the PLO agreed to negotiate territory, it in effect acceded to Israel’s claim that these were somehow “disputed” rather than occupied.
At the same time, the PLO renounced its right to armed resistance. This reduced the PLO and its constituent parties, including Fatah, to an ambiguous role: neither state nor liberation movement, it stood somewhere in the middle, frozen in an “interim stage” in exchange for the promise of an “Interim Self-Government.”
The PLO had therefore left itself almost entirely at the mercy of whichever Israeli government it was negotiating with. And, whichever it was, that government was surely only concerned with its own political hinterland.
Israel’s illegal settlement project in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is perhaps the best example. What transpired almost immediately after the signing of the Declaration of Principles was a massive land grab as Israel began consolidating settlements up and down occupied territory, especially in the areas in and around Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley.
The settlement project had been planned since – some have even argued persuasively, long before – Israel seized the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. The only question for Israeli policymakers after the signing of the Declaration of Principles was which plan to follow: the military/security-oriented Alon, Drobless or Sharon plans, or that of the religiously inspired Gush Emunim (Bloc of the Faithful) movement.
The differences between them were minimal, a matter of outlook rather than content.
The former would, with variations, ensure Israeli sovereignty over: all borders, with the Jordan Valley border bolstered by settlements over an area some 20 kilometers deep, a united Jerusalem surrounded by settlements and control of most of the Judean desert, totaling some 50 percent of the territory of the occupied West Bank. The idea – the maximum land, minimum Palestinians paradigm – was to allow Palestinians limited self-rule over areas of greater Palestinian population density.
Gush Emunim advocated a settlement program everywhere, including near areas highly populated by Palestinians. The settlements around Nablus, for instance, were initiated, at first in contradiction with the Israeli government, then with its permission, by this bloc. They saw these settlements as laying a historic and religious claim to land that was unique to the Jewish people.
Either way, the settlement question was never up for negotiation with the Palestinians. It was a purely internal Israeli matter to be thrashed out between those who saw them primarily in security terms and those who saw them as an ideological and religious priority. This was barely tempered by the necessity to keep Washington on board, an effort facilitated by later weasel concepts such as “natural growth,” with which Israel would mask its settlement consolidation and expansions.
Palestinians were simply not at the table in any meaningful sense.
The numbers speak for themselves. In 1993, there were some 255,000 settlers in the occupied West Bank in some 130 settlements. By the end of 2016, there were nearly 600,000 spread over 200 settlements.

A long descent into despair

The peace process took the wind out of the sails of the first intifada, which had caused so much trouble for Israel. Nothing did more to undermine Israel’s carefully constructed image around the world as a state having to be in constant vigilance in a hostile neighborhood than pictures of Israeli soldiers breaking the limbs of unarmed Palestinian protesters.
That bone-breaking policy was under the orders of one Yitzhak Rabin, the man who in 1948 was responsible for the Lydda death march, yet somehow managed to reinvent himself as a man of peace as prime minister without actually changing his positions on very much at all.
The portents were there and some saw them clearly. In the words of Edward Said, who resigned from the PLO’s Executive Committee in protest, the Oslo accords and their resulting peace process were meant to be one thing and one thing only: “an instrument of Palestinian surrender.”
Even to peace process supporters, the PLO position going into the negotiations was seen and understood as the great compromise: settling for 22 percent of historic Palestine and being willing to negotiate what a right of return of refugees might look like. There was, and is, almost no wriggle room, little to yield in actual talks.
Israelis may have understood this or they may have not. It didn’t really matter. The imbalance of power between the two and the equally unbalanced American approach to mediation meant Israel was negotiating with itself and – on rare occasion – Washington. What the Palestinians wanted mattered little.
It matters less now, 25 years later. US President Donald Trump and his administration has made it clear that any agreement will be firmly on Israel’s terms, having shown its hand on Jerusalem and refugees. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has made it equally clear that whatever Palestinians end up with – “state minus, autonomy plus” – it’s not sovereignty and it’s not statehood.
All the surrender needs is a signature.
Omar Karmi is a former Jerusalem and Washington, DC, correspondent for The National newspaper and associate editor of The Electronic Intifada.

Israeli forces kill Palestinian protester in Gaza

On 'Breaking the siege Friday', demonstrators reiterated their commitment to the Great March of Return

312 Palestinians were wounded by Israeli forces during Friday's weekly protests in Gaza (MEE/Mohammed Asad)

A Palestinian was killed by Israeli forces on Friday afternoon while participating in a Great March of 
Friday 21 September 2018
Return demonstration in the besieged Gaza Strip, the Gaza health ministry reported.
The Palestinian, identified by a ministry spokesperson as 25-year-old Karim Mohammed Kallab, died after being shot by live fire.
A further 312 Palestinians were reportedly wounded - including four in serious condition and one critical - during the protests on Friday, which took place in several locations in eastern Gaza, along the fence separating the Palestinian enclave from Israel.
Friday’s demonstration took place under the title of ‘Breaking the siege Friday’, as protesters denounced the continuation of the 11-year blockade on Gaza, imposed by Israel and upheld by Egypt.
Young protester Abd al-Aziz said he does not fear being injured by Israeli fire (MEE/Mohammed Asad)
According to a Middle East Eye reporter on the ground, Israeli forces shot live fire and tear gas at the thousands of demonstrators gathered along the fence.
"We will remain steadfast, even if they cut our arms and legs and we die as martyrs, we will remain steadfast, by god's will. We will not feel scared or be afraid of death," said Abd al-Aziz, one of the protesters. 
Protesters ripped large coils of barbed wire placed by Israeli forces near the fence.
Earlier in the day, the ministry had reported that Israeli forces had killed 183 Palestinians and wounded another 20,160 since the beginning of the Great March of Return on 30 March.
Samaher Ibrahim and her family insist on joining the protest despite dangers (MEE/Mohammed Asad)
For Samaher Ibrahim, a mother of eight, the potentially fatal dangers did not deter her or her family from participating in the protests.
“This is about the entire Palestinian people, not just us as individuals,” she told MEE. “If each one says ‘I don’t want to go,’ then who will resist against the siege?”
Mohammed Asad contributed reporting from Gaza.

Oromo Freedom Fighters in Addis Ababa

For us here in Eritrea the sight of Issias picture taking center stage at a rally by the Oromo heros in the middle of Addis Ababa is pretty much a mind blower

by Thomas C. Mountain-
( September 20, 2018, Eritrea, Sri Lanka Guardian) This past weekend over 1,500 Oromo freedom fighters made a triumphant return to Addis Ababa from many decades of exile in Eritrea to a jubiulant rally of over 100,000 where a giant photo of Eritrean President Issias Aferwerki graced the stage. Thats right, not the Oromo Prime Minister of Ethiopia Dr. Ahmed Abi, no sir, Issias picture was front and center at this victory celebration, for the Oromos, like the Amhara leadership two days earlier know full well who made Ethiopia’s Peaceful Revolution possible.
Dr. Abiy so famously stated this at the Unity Music Concert in Addis on July 8 where he shared the stage with President Issias as he spoke of the difficulties facing Ethiopia in the days to come, concluding that don’t worry “Issias [Aferwerki] is leading us.”
For us here in Eritrea the sight of Issias picture taking center stage at a rally by the Oromo heros in the middle of Addis Ababa is pretty much a mind blower, for hundreds of thousands of Oromo conscripts bones lie in to many Eritrean fields to remember, cannon fodder in the 30 year independence war fought against Eritrea.
Of course the international media made sure most footage of this monumental photo of Issias was removed from their broadcasts, though the Oromo satellite channels broadcast it over and over for all of us to see.
This is a tough one to swallow by those defenders of human rights in the west who have spent so many years villifying the President of socialist Eritrea. I mean how is it that Issias is a villian yet the heros of the Ethiopian freedom struggle lionize the guy, even more than their own Oromo brother, PM Ahmed Abiy?
Issias, the grizzled veteran of decades of guerilla war followed by decades of diplomatic and economic warfare, saw to it that Eritrea spent million$ growing the Ethiopia freedom fighters even when devastating drought left Eritreans hungry. For years all we heard from Issias at his annual Independence Day speeches was visions of a future of peace and cooperation between fraternal neighbors, not the fratricidal invasions and no war no peace policy being endured by we Eritreans for decades.
Eritreans used to complain, we are suffering and all we get is pie in the sky one day from our President? People said we needed water, electricity and better salaries, not exhortations to stick it out a little longer, better times were coming by and by…
But damn, didnt Issias get it right, peace is upon us almost to fast to comprehend and the largest nationality in our traditional enemy Ethiopia hails our President Issias as their foremost hero?
Not only that but the leadership of the Amhara freedom fighters made a pilgrimage to what is known here in Eritrea as “Camp David”, the site of the giant water reservoir outside of Asmara that Issias personally oversaw construction of, where he has taken up daily residence. Amharas, some of the fiercest opponents of Eritrean Independence paying homage to the man that engineered their defeat on the field of battle, recognizing just what a giant of Ethiopian freedom wedi Afom, Issias Aferwerki is in their peoples eyes?
This isn’t Eritrean “propaganda”, no, no, no, this is the leadership of the Oromo and Amhara peoples of Ethiopia making it crystal clear what their feelings are toward Eritrea and our President Issias Aferwerki. After decades of comradely care in exile in Eritrea these freedom fighters know all to well just what went into the successful peaceful overthrow of one of Africa’s if not the worlds most corrupt and brutal regime, the TPLF gansters recently removed from power.
Even as the Oromo freedom fighters partied in Addis violence flared up with ethnic massacres breaking out in Addis and further into the hinterland, many instigated by the remaining TPLF installed reactionaries still entrenched in much of the beauracracy bringing front and center just how much work remains to be done in the transformation of Ethiopia from a facist, gangster dictatorship to a modern peoples democracy. But as Dr. Abiy told his people dont worry “Issias is leading us”. And no honest person can deny just what the Oromo freedom fighters think about Issias, not if placing a giant picture of the man center stage at their victory rally is any indication.
Thomas C. Mountain is an independent journalist in Eritrea, living and reporting from here since 2006. See thomascmountain on Facebook, thomascmountain on Twitter or best contact him at thomascmountain at gmail dot com

Trump walks back his plan to declassify Russia probe documents

President Trump pulled back on the declassification order he issued at the start of the week. (Alex Brandon/AP)



President Trump on Friday walked back his order earlier this week to declassify information in the ongoing probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election, saying Justice Department officials and others had persuaded him not to do so for the time being.

The retreat from his declassification decree issued just four days ago underscores the ongoing tensions between the White House and the Justice Department over the probe by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, who is examining whether any Trump associates may have conspired with the Kremlin to interfere in the election.

In a pair of Friday morning tweets, Trump said: “I met with the DOJ concerning the declassification of various UNREDACTED documents. They agreed to release them but stated that so doing may have a perceived negative impact on the Russia probe. Also, key Allies’ called to ask not to release.

 Therefore, the Inspector General has been asked to review these documents on an expedited basis. I believe he will move quickly on this (and hopefully other things which he is looking at). In the end I can always declassify if it proves necessary. Speed is very important to me - and everyone!”

His reversal was preceded by a series of conversations between White House lawyer Emmet Flood and senior law enforcement and intelligence officials — chief among them Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, according to people familiar with the discussions, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

Flood had been engaged in those discussions for weeks, but the pace and intensity of the talks picked up considerably after the president’s declassification announcement, these people said.


When asked if he would declassify more documents from the Russia investigation, President Trump said on Sept. 18 that he wants "total transparency."
Trump was also swayed by foreign allies, including Britain, in deciding to reverse course, these people said. It wasn’t immediately clear what other governments may have raised concerns to the White House.

On Monday, the president ordered the Justice Department to declassify significant materials from the Russia investigation, a move that threatened another showdown with federal law enforcement officials resistant to publicizing information from an ongoing probe.

The White House issued a statement Monday saying Trump was ordering the department to immediately declassify portions of the secret court order to monitor former campaign adviser Carter Page, along with all interviews conducted as officials applied for that authority.

Trump also instructed the department to publicly release the unredacted text messages of several former high-level Justice Department and FBI officials, including former FBI director James B. Comey and former deputy director Andrew McCabe.

For months, conservative lawmakers have been calling on the department to release Russia-related and other materials, many of them accusing law enforcement of hiding information that might discredit the Mueller investigation. Those calls were amplified by Fox News hosts, whom the president had previously cited as influencing his decision.

Trump’s declaration on Friday appears to indicate he is willing to let the Justice Department’s inspector general — which is already conducting an internal investigation of how the Russia probe has been handled — review the material rather than release it publicly.

“Thankfully it seems that saner minds have prevailed, at least for the time being,” Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) said via email. “This underscores why the President should be relying on the expertise and advice of intelligence and law enforcement professionals, not cable news hosts.”

Karoun Demirjian contributed to this report.

Trucking Is the Security Crisis You Never Noticed

Everything from food to oil depends on underpaid and overworked drivers.

Trucks stand ready to haul shipping containers at the Port of Los Angeles, the nation's busiest container port, on Sept. 18. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)
Trucks stand ready to haul shipping containers at the Port of Los Angeles, the nation's busiest container port, on Sept. 18. (Mario Tama/Getty Images) 
No automatic alt text available.
BY -
 

“I got my diesel wound up and she’s a-running like a-never before,” sang Dave Dudley in 1963 in his single “Six Days on the Road.” The song was a major hit at a time when the profession still had a glimmer of romance about it. These days, truckin’ is inspiring a whole lot less love, especially among the young. In North America and Europe alike, older drivers are retiring, but hardly anybody’s joining the profession. With global logistics still vitally dependent on trucking, that’s not just a problem for the industry; it’s a potential crisis for everyone—and a national security threat.

“Join me” reads the sticker on many U.S. trailer trucks. The truckers are not asking for company in the cab, but in their profession. The United States is already short of some 60,000 truckers, and within the next eight years the shortage is predicted to reach a staggering 174,000. Each year, some 30,000 German drivers retire, replaced by only 2,000 who finish their truck-driver education, leaving a gap of 45,000 truckers that’s set to skyrocket in the next few years as more drivers age out. Sweden, meanwhile, is already 7,000 drivers short—and that figure is expected to rise to 50,000 within 10 years. The U.K. has 35,000 fewer drivers than it needs.

In many ways, it’s not a surprise that young people aren’t taking up the job. “The essence of being a driver is that you don’t come home every night,” Frank Huster, the CEO of DSLV, Germany’s Freight Forwarding and Logistics Association, told me. “And sleeping on the road is often unappealing or even dangerous. Not surprisingly, given that trucks carry multimillion-euro cargos, organized crime gangs target rest areas. And at harbors and warehouses, staff often force the driver to load and unload even though it’s not part of his job.” What’s more, because there are far too few motels with truck parking, drivers often have no choice but to sleep in the cab. “If you think I’m happy, you’re right,” Dave Dudley sang. Not anymore.

Nor do truckers have a high place on the social totem pole, a reality that is reflected in trucker wages: U.S. drivers, for example, earn a median annual salary of $40,000. “Transportation is too cheap,” Huster said. “In the past, the fee per container going from Asia to Europe was often 2,000 euros [$2,300]. Today, it’s 200 euros [$233]. And with freight shipping that cheap, people expect the truck part to be correspondingly cheap.” According to a new survey by PwC, Amazon Prime customers value the unlimited free delivery offered by the service most, with 72 percent of them saying it’s the main benefit of the service.

While consumers demand free delivery and companies underpay truckers, the profession erodes—and national security is left at risk.That’s because the smooth functioning of society now depends on a shrinking corps of underpaid, and clearly underappreciated, workers. If drivers decided to go on strike, or retire en masse, countries would quickly run out of food and gasoline—causing social and economic crisis and leaving them dangerously vulnerable.

What’s worse, there’s no quick fix. Ninety percent of the world’s goods travel on ships—and when they arrive at the harbor, they have to be transported onward. According to the American Trucking Associations (ATA), 71 percent of all U.S. freight travels on highways. Railways can handle some freight, but they don’t reach smaller communities—nor any shops. We need truckers.

The shortage is already having an effect. According to DSLV statistics, in some regions, up to 10 percent of trucks stand idle because there are no drivers—to the annoyance of the customers expecting the goods. “Trucking companies are already forced to choose which customers they work with,” Huster said. Economic growth will suffer if companies can’t transport their goods to the buyer, but for most of us, the resulting delays are mostly an inconvenience.

But the problems don’t end with impatient consumers. Because the retail industry has mostly converted to a “just in time” delivery model, it relies on constant new supplies, with warehouse space emptying almost as soon as its filled. “Amazon would love to be able to do predictive filling of their warehouses for, say, Christmas or Easter, but due to trucker shortage they don’t have the capacity to do it, so their resupply of warehouses is entirely reactive,” Henrik Christensen, the chair of robot systems at the University of California, San Diego, told me. Without truckers, no daily bread, or milk, or fruit, or meat. And no gasoline. And what would happen after natural disasters, when enormous quantities of goods have to be delivered quickly? One could argue that the missing truck driver will wreak more havoc on the U.S. way of living than Russian President Vladimir Putin or the 1973 oil embargo.

Enter the salvation: self-driving trucks. Not so fast. “We’re relatively close to Level 4 autonomy [hands-off driving for extended periods] on highways,” Christensen said. “The problem is what happens when you get off the highway into mixed traffic with pedestrians and bicycles.” Self-driving vehicles also function badly in poor weather or any kind of unpredictable conditions—not to mention the threats of theft or vandalism. Christensen’s team is currently conducting Level 4 experiments for a transportation company, with promising results. But will legislators and city planners trust the massive machines without drivers? Such legislative changes may take several years, Christensen said, even if the technology becomes available. It may be no surprise, then, that Uber recently killed its much-heralded self-driving truck initiative.

Even if trucks are eventually able to drive on their own, they will require a human being in the cab to handle emergencies and security issues—and they’ll be sleeping in the same dingy conditions, spending similar time away from their families, and having to do the same heavy work of loading and unloading. And with the profession deskilled by automation, they may even be paid worse than right now. Even fewer people will want to do it—and we will still need people to get our goods to us. Over the next decade, the ATA estimates, the U.S. economy will need some 90,000 new truckers per year.
A first step out of this looming national security crisis is wages. “We’re already seeing some upward movement, with a few drivers making as much as 3,500 euros [$4,000] per month,” Huster said.

When existing and potential drivers realize how much hinges on their services, they may well have some leverage to demand more. But the legacy of the Teamsters union notwithstanding, most truck drivers are not organized in powerful trade unions, and the decentralized nature of the logistics business makes collective bargaining difficult. Individual drivers may eventually manage to increase their pay, but there won’t be a sudden rise. In the meantime, there’s a scramble to try and find new ways to entice the young in. The ATA proposes dropping the minimum age from 21 to 18, while the Deutscher Verkehrssicherheitsrat (German Traffic Security Council) advocates allowing 17-year-olds behind the wheel.

Such changes may only bring marginal improvement. What needs to change is something much more radical: the way in which we receive our necessities. Environmental activists have long argued that transporting daily goods around the globe is harmful to the planet, but because the business model is also vulnerable to disruptions, retailers should consider shifting to some local production. Yes, it would raise consumer prices—but consumers are increasingly aware of the downsides of, say, transporting apples or T-shirts between continents. Consumers, in turn, would have to modify their behavior and not expect constant deliveries of necessities. Sure, it’s nice to order groceries from one’s sofa and have them delivered within hours—but planning one’s consumption a bit more doesn’t take a lot of effort.

And retailers have to drive home the point to consumers that there’s no such thing as a free truck ride. By charging customers properly for the transportation of their goods, companies would lose some customers, but heavily discounted delivery is at any rate not a workable business model. More radically, on their customer receipts retailers could itemize how much the drivers were paid to deliver the item. Realizing how poorly we compensate the crucial trucker could make us consumers willing to properly pay for their services, or otherwise limit our use of them.

Here’s the thing: The nature of globalized markets means we rely on truckers, but by lazily multiplying our dependence on them, we are making our countries vulnerable. If societies can cope with 24 or 48 hours without new supplies of food or gasoline, a shortfall in truckers becomes a problem, not a crisis.
 
Elisabeth Braw leads RUSI’s Modern Deterrence program