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

Monday, October 29, 2018

Palestinian prisoner on hunger strike ends protest after sentencing


Khader Adnan began a hunger strike last month in protest of his detention in Israeli jail

Khader Adnan, pictured on hunger strike last year, has staged several protests in past years (AFP/File photo)

Monday 29 October 2018
A Palestinian prisoner ended his hunger strike on Monday after an Israeli military court sentenced him to one year in prison, his wife said.
Khader Adnan, 40, has been in detention since last December.
The sentence, handed down by an Israeli military court on Monday, means he is expected to be released within two months, his wife and lawyer said.
Adnan began a hunger strike in early September against his detention and his health has been deteriorating.
"The judge's decision to sentence him for a year was based on my husband's bad health situation as a result of his hunger strike," said his wife, Randa.
The Israeli army confirmed the sentence on Monday. In a statement, it said the military court convicted Adnan of having been an active member of the banned Islamic Jihad organisation, after he pleaded guilty in a plea bargain.
READ MORE ►
Adnan has staged protests during four previous stints in Israeli jails.
He spent 67 days on hunger strike in 2012 in protest against his imprisonment without charge or trial, a practice that Israel calls administrative detention. 
In 2015, he went without food for over 50 days after another arrest.
Adnan was not being held in administrative detention during his current prison stint, according to the Palestinian news agency Maan.
Last week, Adnan's wife decried the conditions of his detention, saying he had lost half his weight.
"His face was pale and his beard and hair were long. They didn't allow him to have a shower, change his clothes or trim his beard as a means of pressuring him to end his hunger strike," Randa told MEE.
Human rights groups have denounced Israel's use of administrative detention, saying it deprives Palestinians of due process.
"Israel jails many Palestinian detainees and prisoners inside Israel, violating international humanitarian law requiring that they not be transferred outside the occupied territory and restricting the ability of family members to visit them," Human Rights Watch said in a reportearlier this year.

Space invaders and Palestinian rights

Are humans too stupid to avoid an alien invasion? Pexels Images

Amir Azarvan-29 October 2018

Philosophers sometimes adopt an alien perspective as a useful way to try to take an objective view of human affairs. It is a thought experiment that I sometimes like to apply to the Palestinian question.
Imagine an alien collecting intelligence on planet Earth in order to determine whether humans are intelligent enough to successfully defend their world from an invasion. Among other barometers, the alien would take into consideration the manner in which humans handle their disagreements. Do the earthlings argue according to universal, inviolable laws of logic?

Now, when I hear people object to Palestinian rights by expressing the common refrain that the Palestinians don’t really exist as a nation, I imagine the alien instinct would reach a quick conclusion: “Oh, we can totally invade.”

For readers who aren’t very familiar with the Palestine issue, this is actually a thing. Several American commentators have adopted this idea, once expressed by former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who remarked that “there’s really no such thing as a Palestinian.” (Those Americans who adopt this inane argument tend to be the same faux patriots who chant “America first!” and yet are the first to subordinate national interests to those of foreign countries. But this particular bit of irony is not my focus here.)

Their argument rests on the fact that national consciousness among the Arab peoples evolved differently than it did among the Europeans before them. Unlike their European counterparts, the argument goes, “Arab states are not grounded in preexisting national identities, but on borders drawn by the victorious European powers following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War.”

“Palestinian deniers”

Just like modernization theorists, “Palestinian deniers” – to coin a phrase – commit the common error of assuming that earlier paths to desired outcomes (e.g. democracy or a high GDP) are, precisely because they unfolded earlier, the only available paths to follow in order for these outcomes to be authentic. In other words, they confuse sufficient and necessary conditions, ascribing a law-like status to earlier paths. As it turns out, not all countries have developed economically or politically in the same manner that Western countries have – or are at least believed to have – developed.

For instance, it was once believed, owing to the European experience, that democratization is preceded by economic “modernization.” Yet one finds countries that seem to have followed a very different trajectory, democratizing in spite of their relative poverty, or indeed not democratizing after economic modernization. Palestinians are no less a nation than Benin is a democracy, however poor, or China is an economic powerhouse, however undemocratic.

Palestinian deniers also believe that the supposed newness of Palestinian national identity is somehow relevant. The logic they put forth essentially amounts to this:

Premise 1: A nation is a body of people who have always been conscious of themselves as a distinct nation.

Premise 2: Palestinians haven’t always been conscious of themselves as a distinct people. Conclusion: Therefore, Palestinians don’t exist as a nation.

(One might wish to append the additional premise that fake nations may be brutally oppressed, as some Palestinian deniers appear to believe that this corollary follows from the conclusion.)
Let’s assume the novelty of Palestinian identity merely for the sake of argument (for a scholarly work that counters this view, see Rashid Khalidi’s Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness). This logic begs the obvious question: what nation, therefore, does exist?

No nation is primordial. Some nations are older, some are newer, but ultimately all nations are, according to this flawed logic, fake. Nations that we take for granted, like the French, German, or Italians, were to a large degree constructed by political entrepreneurs who sought to create an emotional attachment among otherwise diverse peoples to one another and to the state.

As historian Eugen Weber put it in the case of the French, the goal was to transform “peasants into Frenchmen.” If there’s no such thing as a Palestinian, then Germans are, likewise, a figment of our imagination. Perhaps our Palestine-denying friends should argue, instead, for a minimum age at which a people are magically transformed into a nation.

To my knowledge, there’s no movement among the people of Wyoming’s Washakie County for greater autonomy or independence. Yet suppose the state and federal governments decided to neglect or abuse the people of this county. We would expect this mistreatment to birth a new Washakie identity, although no one who is genuinely interested in human rights would be distracted by the irrelevant historical fact that “Washakies” were, until recently, never conscious of themselves as a people distinct from other Wyomingites or Americans.

Likewise, let’s not be distracted by foolish arguments concerning the history and development of Palestinian identity.

Let’s instead prove to our belligerent alien that we are not distracted by the manifestly absurd argument that Palestinians don’t exist. The evident popularity of this claim exposes an embarrassing vulnerability on our part; one that speaks to a contemptibly low aptitude for rational discourse.

Amir Azarvan is assistant professor of political science at Georgia Gwinnett College.

PLO council votes to suspend recognition of state of Israel


PLO central council voted to halt all commitments to 'occupation authorities' until Israel recognises Palestinian state

Council tasked President Mahmoud Abbas and PLO Executive Committee with following up on Monday's decision (Reuters)

Monday 29 October 2018
The Palestine Liberation Organization's central council has announced that it is suspending its recognition of the state of Israel.
In the decision, announced after a meeting late Monday, the PLO said it will halt all its commitments to the "occupation authorities" until Israel recognises a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
That includes security cooperations and trade agreements reached between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
While the central council's decisions are not binding, it advises the PA on future policy decisions. PA President Mahmoud Abbas was present at the meeting.
The central council has previously in 2015 called for ending security cooperation with Israel.
The council has tasked Abbas and the PLO Executive Committee with following up on Monday's decisions.
The council also explicitly rebuked the Donald Trump-led peace process and his "Deal of the Century" plan to end the conflict.
READ MORE ►
"The committee lauded the efforts of the president (Abbas) ... in continuing to reject the so-called Deal of the Century and confronting it in all available means to defeat it, as well as deeming the US administration a partner of the Israeli occupation government and a part of the problem, not the solution," official Palestinian news agency Wafa reported.
The council also hit out at Hamas, which controls the Gaza strip, accusing the Islamist group of failing to live up to its commitment and the unity agreement that was signed in October of last year.
Abbas appeared to endorse Monday's decisions, saying the time has come to put into actions previous measures approved by the central council.
According to a statement published by WAFA, Abbas called on Palestinians to unite behind the PLO as the "sole legitimate representatives" of the Palestinian people.

Amid mounting pressure from Washington to end Palestinian Authority's public assistance to the families of prisoners and people killed by Israeli forces, Abbas said: "The allocations for our families and martyrs and the wounded are a red line; we cannot negotiate over their rights."

The Military Is Back in Brazil

From security to economic policy, under Jair Bolsonaro, the armed forces will be a major player in politics.

Jair Bolsonaro waves to the crowd during a military event in São Paulo on May 3. (Nelson Almeida/AFP/Getty Images)Jair Bolsonaro waves to the crowd during a military event in São Paulo on May 3. (Nelson Almeida/AFP/Getty Images)

No automatic alt text available.
BY -
 
Sunday’s election in Brazil capped Jair Bolsonaro’s meteoric rise from fringe far-right congressman to the country’s president. He won the runoff with slightly over 55 percent of the vote, delivering a drubbing to his opponent, Fernando Haddad of the Workers’ Party.

Bolsonaro’s electoral rout will change Brazil’s political landscape in two ways. First, it will dramatically reshuffle the country’s party politics, relegating the Workers’ Party, long Brazil’s most organized and powerful political force, to the backbench.

His victory will also bury several other established parties, including the centrist Brazilian Social Democracy Party, which in the general elections earlier this month failed to win even 10 percent of the seats in either the Senate or Chamber of Deputies, and many parties on the right, which saw their voters flee to the president-elect’s Social Liberal Party. For example, outgoing President Michel Temer’s centrist Brazilian Democratic Movement, which has been the target of repeated corruption allegations, lost about half its electoral support compared to the previous general electoral. It will take years for these parties to rebuild their constituencies, if they can, and they will face a more polarized electorate as they try.

Second, and perhaps even more important for the long-term health of the country’s democracy, is what the election means for the Brazilian military. Bolsonaro, a former military man, has promised to pack his cabinet full of former generals and deepen the armed forces’ role in domestic security.

He’s likely to interpret his landslide victory as a mandate to charge forward with those plans, which would upset the careful balance struck between the military and civilians in the last few decades.
Brazil’s military ruled from 1964 to 1985. During that time, it imposed strict order, took an active role in economic development, and squelched civil society. Although the military retreated to the barracks in the 1980s, individual members of the former regime subsequently won important political posts in local and national government, through which they retained outsized power and influence.
Under Bolsonaro, military influence in civilian affairs won’t be limited to a few former military figures. Rather, the Brazilian military as an institution will return to politics. It will exert its power in at least three areas.

First and foremost will be the military’s role in policing and public security. Bolsonaro rode to victory in large part due to popular outrage about rising crime, insecurity, and gang violence. Over 60,000 people were slain in the country last year alone, which makes for a murder rate more than five times higher than in the United States and 20 percent higher than in Mexico, where a brutal drug war is playing out on the streets. Not surprisingly, nearly 40 percent of Brazilians name violence as one of their country’s most pressing problems.

If his campaign promises are any guide, Bolsonaro will hand the military a greater role in domestic security.

If his campaign promises are any guide, part of Bolsonaro’s solution to the problem will be handing the military a greater role in domestic security. His predecessor, Temer, already took the unprecedented step of placing the military in charge of security in Rio de Janeiro. But Bolsonaro could well extend that to São Paulo and other major urban areas.

Doing so would fit well with the president-elect’s calls for much more aggressive policing. He’s gone so far as to say that a police officer who hasn’t killed anyone isn’t a real police officer, and he has argued that the police should be allowed to use lethal force. He also wants to automatically classify any deaths at the hands of officers as accidents, in spite of the fact that Brazilian police killed over 4,000 people in 2016—that is a lot of accidents. In the last year, the count has spiked in hot spots such as Rio de Janeiro.

Although a majority of Rio residents “do not believe that Brazil’s security problems will be solved by giving the police a license to kill,” according to polling by Brazil’s Center for Studies on Public Safety and Citizenship, most Brazilians do demand better security. In fact, earlier this year, nearly 40 percent of Brazilians said that security considerations would be a major factor in how they would decide to cast their vote in this month’s elections.

Concerns about security combined with wariness of more police violence feeds the military’s resurgence. Among many Brazilians, it is simply seen as the more competent and trustworthy force. (One survey in June 2017 found that 80 percent of people trust the military fully or at least a little. As few as about 50 percent reported trusting the police in another survey that month.) Indeed, some mayors have already staffed up local police forces with retired military officers in hopes of improving discipline and performance.

Under Bolsonaro, the military will also reassert itself into economic development. Many older voters remember the so-called Brazilian economic miracle, during which the military dictatorship stoked industrialization and development to create annual economic growth rates of nearly 10 percent. The gains from that boom were unevenly distributed, and it eventually came to a crashing halt. But that period of relative prosperity nonetheless contrasts sharply with the extreme economic contraction of recent years, which has coincided with a drop in support for democracy. According to a 2017 Pew poll, over 30 percent of Brazilians believe democracy is a bad way to govern. Almost 40 percent offered some support for rule by the military.
According to a 2017 Pew poll, over 30 percent of Brazilians believe democracy is a bad way to govern. Almost 40 percent offered some support for rule by the military.
On the campaign trail, Bolsonaro appealed to these Brazilians when he said that he would appoint generals to many of his government’s ministries “not because they are generals, but because they are competent.” Although he has recruited the free-market economist Paulo Guedes as his economy minister, observers such as Alexandre Schwartsman, the former director of Brazil’s central bank, believe that this alliance is tenuous at best. It may prove to be a gambit to gain support from financial elites and will falter to the extent that Guedes’s plans bump up against the military’s desire for more direct economic management.

In particular, the armed forces would like to see more development in the Amazon, which they have historically viewed not as an important ecosystem to protect but as a security burden and national resource that should be exploited. Bolsonaro, who shares that vision, has unsurprisingly declared his intention to scrap environmental protections and regulations in the name of pushing forward new road, mine, hydroelectric, and agribusiness projects.

Finally, under Brazil’s new president after he’s inaugurated next January, the military will likely get more involved in the way the country regulates arms sales and the weapons industry. Brazil previously tried and failed to implement gun control, in part through an ill-fated referendum in 2005 in which nearly two-thirds of voters rejected a proposal to ban gun sales. Any similar efforts are off the table for now.

Today, the military is aligned with the so-called bancada da bala, the congressional caucus tied to pro-gun and weapons lobbyists. Together, the two will likely halt any further attempts at gun control even as they attempt to boost international arms sales. Bolsonaro supports allowing law-abiding citizens to arm themselves and has called for a legislative repeal of Brazil’s “disarmament statute,” which restricts gun ownership and the ability to carry guns. Pro-gun lawmakers visited Bolsonaro at his home last week to ensure that their agenda is front and center at the outset of his presidency. It probably will be: Given the president-elect’s public support and the military’s sway among parts of Brazil’s judiciary, they will probably be able to pursue this part of the agenda largely unchecked.
What all this ultimately portends for Brazil’s democracy remains to be seen. Despite its power and influence, the military would far rather work through a Bolsonaro presidency than rule directly. But if the two hollow out Brazilian institutions enough—and if Bolsonaro unleashes the police and armed forces against his critics, as he has threatened to do—Brazil could retrace its steps all the way back to 1964, the last time the military fully took control.

What is happening to our country?


Pittsburgh's close-knit Squirrel Hill community came together for a vigil after a gunman opened fire on the city's oldest synagogue. 



I am so sad. I am so heartbroken. What is happening to our country?

How can we live in an America where a gunman can barge into a synagogue and open fire, reportedly screaming “All Jews must die”?

How can we live in an America where someone — the FBI has arrested a Trump supporter named Cesar Sayoc — can send pipe bombs to, among others, former presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), financier George Soros, former CIA director John Brennan and CNN?

This is not what America is about. We are a country dedicated to freedom of speech, press, assembly and religion. We are a nation of immigrants from all corners of the globe brought together in mutual dedication to the “self-evident” truths “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” All “men” means, in the language of the 18th century, all people of whatever gender or color or creed.

There is no exception for liberals or Jews or critics of the president.

Tolerance for political and religious differences is a non-negotiable part of the social contract in the United States. It is the very core of our national identity, even if it has all too often been honored more in the breach than the observance. We settle our political differences through debate followed by voting. Political terrorism and sectarian bloodletting — these are the sorts of horrors that occur in the Balkans or the Middle East. Not here. Not in the land of the free. We’re better than this. We’re Americans.
Eleven people were killed and six were wounded on Oct. 27, when Robert Bowers allegedly attacked Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. 
Except now the horror show has arrived on our shores.

The fault does not lie, as President Trump insists, with those in the media (e.g., “lowly rated CNN”) who have the temerity to question and criticize him. It is the job of the press to hold those in power to account, and the press has recently done a magnificent job of discharging its constitutional responsibility. Has the media gotten everything right? Of course not. But it has gotten a lot more right than a president who lies with impunity and abandon.

Nor does the fault lie, as Trump’s supposedly reasonable supporters insist, with “both sides.” For example, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), tweeted: “Why is it so hard to accept that a clearly deranged man carried out deranged acts? The ‘false flag’ conspiracy theories on one side & the ‘it’s Trump’s fault’ on the other shows how unhinged politics has become. This isn’t incivility. It’s a society that has lost common sense.”

I, too, have criticized the incivility of Democrats. Hounding officials in restaurants is a mistake. Comparing Trump to Hitler is wrong. But those errors cannot be spoken of in the same breath with terrible crimes such as sending pipe bombs or opening fire in a synagogue.

To be clear, the investigation into Saturday’s attack on the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh is only just beginning, and there is more to learn about Sayoc’s apparent infatuation with Trump. But it also should be clear to all that holding the president of the United States to account for his hateful rhetoric is not the same thing as subscribing to lunatic “false flag” conspiracy theories that ricochet around the right-wing world. In their eagerness to protect their leader, Republicans are guilty of the very sin they have spent years decrying — false moral equivalence.

Extremism has been present in America for a long time. But Trump is applying a match to the kindling.

Trump calls Democrats “evil” and “crazy.” He accuses them of being “treasonous” and “un-American.” He claims they are in league with MS-13 gang members. He says they are trying to open our borders to criminals and to turn America into Venezuela — a bankrupt socialist dictatorship. He denounces the media as “the enemy of the people.” He applauds a congressman who assaulted a reporter and calls for his political opponent to be locked up. He singles out minorities such as Waters for opprobrium, and he promotes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that hold George Soros responsible for everything from the Central American caravan to protests against Brett M. Kavanaugh.

When Trump talks about “globalists,” the far right hears “Jews.” When Trump says there were “fine people” on both sides in Charlottesville, the far right hears official approval. There is so much anti-Semitic filth online now. I see it every day on Twitter and in my email inbox. Normally I tune it out. Just background noise. But others are listening.

And Trump continues his incendiary rhetoric even after the tragic consequences have become clear. On Friday, after a pro forma denunciation of political violence, Trump laughed as a group of black conservatives at the White House chanted “Fake News!” He echoed their chants of “Lock him up!” about Soros. Hours later, he presided over a rally in Charlotte, where supporters chanted “CNN sucks.” Asked by reporters whether he would tone down his hateful rhetoric, he defiantly replied, “I could really tone it up.” Asked if he bore any responsibility for what is happening, he answered

“There’s no blame. There’s no anything.”

In times of crisis, we look for the president to bind our wounds, to overcome partisanship, to unite the country. Trump is doing the opposite. He is deliberately exacerbating our divisions for partisan gain. He is risking widespread political violence so that he and his Republican supporters can hold on to office.

I am so sad. I am so heartbroken that our president is acting this way.

Donald Trump's rhetoric has stoked antisemitism and hatred, experts warn

The president’s tone has come under scrutiny after the Pittsburgh massacre of 11 Jews and ‘does not discourage people from acting out their terrifying views’
 Last year when far-right marchers marched in Charlottesville, Virginia, chanting ‘Jews will not replace’, Donald Trump said their number included some ‘very fine people’. Photograph: Andrew Harnik/AP

 -

Donald Trump has fuelled a climate of hatred in general and antisemitism in particular, with the Republican party acting as his enabler, experts warned on Monday.

The US president’s tone has been under renewed scrutiny after Saturday’s massacre of 11 worshippers at a synagogue in Pittsburgh, believed to be the deadliest attack on Jewish people in American history.

“He has dramatically elevated the level of rhetorical tension in ways that do not discourage people from acting out their terrifying views,” said David N Myers, professor of Jewish History at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Trump renewed the offensive on Monday with a tweet that warned of an “invasion” of immigrants, echoing the hate-filled writings of accused synagogue gunman Robert Bowers.

The president wrote that “some very bad people” were mixed into the caravan of several thousand people, mainly from Honduras, currently travelling through Mexico. “This is an invasion of our Country and our Military is waiting for you!” Trump added.

Citing official sources, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Trump administration was preparing to send 5,000 more US troops to the border to help with security, angering immigrants’ rights activists and others who say the move militarizes the issue unnecessarily for political gain ahead of crucial midterm elections next week.

But Trump’s choice of words also caused outrage.

Two hours before he burst into the synagogue and killed 11 worshippers, Bowers posted on the chat site Gab.com about the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), a not-for-profit organisation that helps refugees relocate to the US. “HIAS likes to bring invaders in that kill our people,” he wrote. “I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I’m going in.”

As the president again tried to shift blame to the media on Monday, arguing that “fraudulent” reporting was contributing to anger in the country and declaring that the press was the “true Enemy of the People”, criticism of his corrosive rhetoric and fears over its consequences were growing.

A survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found a majority (54%) of Americans feel Trump’s decisions and behaviour have encouraged white supremacist groups, compared with 39% who say they had had no effect and 5% who say he has discouraged these groups.

Critics say he has a history of using Jewish stereotypes.

In 2015, he told the Republican Jewish Coalition “I’m a negotiator like you folks” but suggested they would not support him “because I don’t want your money”. The following year, he tweeted an image of Clinton set against a background of US currency with a six-pointed star (reminiscent of the star of David) and the words, “Most corrupt candidate ever!” His closing campaign ad railed against “global special interests” and featured images of George Soros, a billionaire investor and philanthropist, and the Federal Reserve chairwoman, Janet Yellen, both of whom are Jewish.


 A tweet depicting Hillary Clinton and a six-sided star that Trump deleted from his account followed by its replacement, which uses a circle. Photograph: Screengrab

Trump’s first chief strategist was Steve Bannon, a champion of the alt-right. The White House issued a statement to commemorate International Holocaust Remembrance Day that made no mention of Jews or antisemitism. Then the press secretary, Sean Spicer, was forced to apologise after asserting that Adolf Hitler, who gassed millions of Jews during the Holocaust, did not use chemical weapons.
Perhaps most strikingly, after white supremacists marched in Charlottesville, Virginia, wielding flaming torches and shouting, “Jews will not replace us” ahead of deadly violence, Trump said there were some “very fine people on both sides.

Myers said: “There is a toxic culture of vilification and demonisation that has pervaded American political culture in recent years. Donald Trump did not invent that toxic culture but he has certainly stirred the pot considerably.”

Jewish people make up only about 2% of the US population, the Associated Press reported, but in annual FBI data they repeatedly account for more than half of Americans targeted by hate crimes committed due to religious bias. The Anti-Defamation League identified 1,986 antisemitic incidents last year, up from 1,267 in 2016.

Trump has also made derogatory comments about women, Mexicans,Muslims and others. Myers added: “He’s an equal opportunity and equal opportunistic vilifier. My surmise is that he doesn’t dislike Jews more than other people but I am stupefied by his unwillingness to call it out when it occurs, especially given his own family background with his son-in-law and daughter.”

Ivanka Trump converted to Judaism ahead of her 2009 wedding to Jared Kushner. The couple are practising modern Orthodox Jews.

The Republican party has done little to curb Trump’s tendencies. Last week Kevin McCarthy, the House majority and a close ally of the president, posted and later deleted a tweet suggesting that Soros and two other Jewish billionaire Democratic donors were attempting to “buy” the midterm elections.

Myers said: “The party has enabled his behaviour and that is simply unacceptable. They need to insist he take a much more active stance in calling out this kind of violence and that which precedes it.”
Sara Lipton, a professor of history at the State University of New York, Stony Brook, said “there is absolutely no question” that Trump is aware his followers include white supremacists, racists and antisemites and that he is determined to keep them. The Republican party’s willingness to put power before principle is “even more alarming”, she added.

“This is where I see the breakdown of society: the passivity and tacit acceptance of those in positions of influence.”

Kurt Bardella, a political columnist and former Republican congressional aide, said: “The Republican party has doubled down on its strategy of hiding from all these things. I don’t see them lining up on Fox News to denounce [broadcasters] Lou Dobbs or Rush Limbaugh for spreading rightwing conspiracy theories.

“They have chosen to be cowards in the face of these atrocities and hopefully there will be a reckoning next week when they come before voters.”

Saudi Slaying Sinks American ME Policy

Murder in the Consulate; panic in Riyadh; balls-up in Washington


article_image
Mike Pompeo and King Salman searching for a "Mutually agreeable explanation that won’t implicate the Crown Prince"

Kumar David- 

Right at the start I told friends in my e-mail group that nothing would come of it; the murder would be swept under the carpet, Saudis would admit to the barest knowledge of Jamal Khoshaggi’s (JK) fate, America would launder Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s (MBS) dirty linen and after a little fluster it would be business as usual. It is turning out to be just that notwithstanding much chest beating in the liberal media. Who cared about assassination of El Salvadorian Archbishop Oscar Ramiro by the country’s military regime except a few leftists until Pope Francis canonised him a fortnight ago? A dozen journalists are murdered each year all over the world and soon forgotten. Sirisena and Wickremesinghe have swept Lasantha’s murder under the carpet much to the relief of Gota, MR and Fony.

But there have been assassinations that changed history; Julius Caesar, Thomas à Becket, Archduke Franz Ferdinand and later Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Benigno Aquino. In comparison JK is a tiny potato and in the long-run the fallout from the murder will be zilch. Or, who knows? The Middle East is volatile and Donald Trump is bizarre, hence interesting times (as the Chinese say) may unfold. The purpose of this column is not to keep you up to date with the news; there are better ways to do that. Where I can be useful is in political assessment. Here are likely medium-term (one to two year) scenarios in order of indicative likelihood.

1. There will be a major reset in Middle East politics, such as transformation of the Saudi royal dictatorship, democratisation of the Gulf region or a decline in America’s power to call the shots in the region. (Likelihood 0.1%).

2. An improvement in the Middle East such as accelerated reforms in Saudi Arabia and in the Gulf, reassertion of the legitimacy of the Iran nuclear deal, ending the Saudi-American genocidal Yemen war, better US (Congressional not Trump) policy on Palestine. (Likelihood 0.9% since US-Israeli-Saudi-Middle East relationships are set in stone).

3. Removal of Crown Prince MSB from a position of power, perhaps temporarily, and implicit regime alterations and amendments in Saudi state policy. (Small, say 9% chance).

4. Nothing at all will happen (90% likely). I dare you! Show me in six months what has changed.

Erdogan has been brought on board by Washington and Riyadh. The Turkish economy is in a bad way and speculation is that Erdogan drove a hard bargain, maybe relaxation of sanctions and debt amelioration. In his much anticipated 23 October speech he revealed even less than was already known in the public domain. He did say the murder was premeditated but forgot to add that the sun rises in the East. Clearly he has cut a deal for restraint in a recipe cooked in Washington with ingredients shipped from Riyadh. He soiled himself by implicitly going along with a hoax to save MBS and letting the Saudis pick on a few fall guys such as Saad Al-Qahtari, MBS’ right-hand man and enforcer. He avoided confirming or denying the existence of audio and video tapes of the murder and dismemberment of the body.

Done! That is the important part of my piece. Let me now titillate your baser instincts with gruesome details. Turkish police have found damning evidence that JK was murdered inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul. The body was dismembered while KJ was still alive, packed in suitcases and taken ‘home’ in two Saudi jets which had arrived earlier in the day with 15 killers holding diplomatic passports. Investigators found toxic materials in the Consulate; operatives had chemically scrubbed the walls and painted over crucial evidence. For 17 days the Saudis lied brazenly and for 13 refused Turkey permission to search the Consulate and the Consul’s home. Trump barefacedly colluded and changed his story every two or three days. He now says: "It was a plot gone awry".

On audio recordings of the murder "You can hear his voice and other voices speaking Arabic; you can hear how he was tortured and murdered" many leading media outlets say. Strategically fed leaks from the Turkish prosecutor and police blew apart the lies and forced the Saudis to confess 20 days after the event. It was leaks and the international media pressure that gave Erdogan the leverage to cut a deal with Washington and Riyadh presumably on good terms for Turkey.

The comic part of the show stars Donald Trump. Following a telephone conversation with King Salman he first floated the fiction that the murder was the work of "rogue killers". He must have recently read comic book renditions of the Arabian Nights tale Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves! Leaks from the Turkish police and prosecutor built irresistible pressure; the Saudis finally capitulated and confessed to killing KJ in the Consulate, but they plead it was not cleared by MBS. "Tell us another one, just like the other one, tell us another one do!" Trump now "awaits Saudis plans" while MBS has been put in charge of restructuring the intelligence services; a fox in charge of the chicken coop, or appointing Buddharakkita to reform Somarama’s pirivena.

KJ’s murder ignited a global uproar and Trump was compelled to dispatch Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to Riyadh to cook up "A mutually agreeable explanation that won’t implicate the Crown Prince". In Riyadh, Pompeo smiled and dined with Salman and MBS. Of Saudi-US friendship MBS exclaimed to the media: "We are strong old allies. We face our challenges together – past, present and future"; Pompeo responded "Absolutely"; no surprise there. The story being cooked up is that Saudis admit culpability but it was an unauthorised rendition attempt that went wrong. However, the media dug up photos of four of the operative seen regularly in MBS’ company. The one who oversaw the mission has been identified as Maher Abdulaziz Mutrebas, MBS’ personal bodyguard.

MBS’ bodyguard and personal hatchet man Abdulaziz Mutrebas entering the Consulate(www.scmp.com/news/world/middle-east/article/2169171/man-linked-saudi-prince-was-consulate-when-jamal-khashoggi)

There are three reasons, all simultaneously true, why Trump is bending over to shield the killers. One is that he is a mule and knows no better than to plough the same discredited furrow. The second is that he benefitted to the tune of tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars from real estate deals with the Saudis and owes them a favour; and more important he fears exposure (as with Putin). On the campaign trail he boasted of millions he had earned from Saudi deals. He is the only US President since Nixon who has not disclosed his tax returns.

A third reason is the importance of the Middle East to the US. Trump has antagonised America’s best diplomats that he is now high and dry for good advice. Washington is in an incredible mess and Trump is out of his depth. If you sympathise with US foreign policy you may grant that US-Saudi relations are of the highest priority and should not be endangered. But that is a state-to-state matter, not a Trump family (DJ and son-in-law Jared Kushner) to MBS cosying-up matter. Trump who puts narcissism at the centre of every involvement cannot separate policy from personal profit and has muddled the two again.

JK though a recent critic of the Saudi regime was never a dissident. He was a business operator and previously a hanger-on of the regime. He had been an adviser to MSB and praised his reforms. He never called for regime change, only for gradual reform. He did criticise some aspects of policy such as the brutal war in Yemen. Hence it is not clear why it was essential to murder, dismember and take him back ‘home’; it must be the sheer arrogance of the Saudi royals.

The murder prompted outrage and businesses which were lining up to cash in on Saudi billions to be spent by MBS on ambitious investment programmes have been caught with their pants down. ‘Davos in the Desert’ a $900 billion investment bonanza has just started but the IMF’s Christine Lagarde and the World Bank have pulled out in embarrassment. The biggest names in global business, the crème de la crème, the 1% of the 1%, were to be there. Now they are bolting like sheep fleeing the slaughterhouse. The rush is headed by CEOs or Presidents of Black-Stone, Black-Rock, Virgin’s Richard Branson, Standard Chartered, JP Morgan, HSBC, Credit Suisse, Ford, Uber and the like. Of course, the carrion eaters will all be back after the dust settles and repression returns to the familiar old-fashioned style much loved by big business.

Trump doggedly stayed the course insisting that Treasury Secretary Steven Munchin attend until Congress forced him into a boycott. The governments of France, UK, Germany and Netherlands are also keeping away. Trump has spoken loudly of the $110 billion armaments sale to the Saudi that he negotiated during his much-feted trip. Leaving aside the morality of flooding the region with more military hardware, the Saudi regime cannot cancel the purchase since it needs killing gear for its own survival. Nor can it switch the order to Russia or China without jeopardising performance of existing hardware which is deeply plugged into American technology.

Trump dispatched CIA Director Gina Haspel to Ankara to meet Erdogan on the morning before the latter’s sell-out speech and Treasury Secretary Munchin to Riyadh, probably to finalise the payoff. If anyone thought ethics of any degree prevails at the apex of international politics, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Donald John Trump and Recep Tayyip Erdo?an just gave them an ice cold shower.

Khashoggi fiancee hits at Trump response, warns of 'money' influence

Hatice Cengiz, fiancee of slain Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, is seen during an interview with Reuters in London, Britain, October 29, 2018. REUTERS/Dylan Martinez

Guy Faulconbridge-OCTOBER 29, 2018

LONDON (Reuters) - The fiancée of Jamal Khashoggi on Monday criticised President Donald Trump’s response to his killing, urging him to set aside U.S. trade interests in the push for truth, and demanded Riyadh disclose more details to bring those who ordered it to justice.

The death of Khashoggi - a Washington Post columnist and a critic of Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman - sparked global outrage and pitched the world’s top oil exporter into crisis.

Trump has hedged his criticism of Saudi leaders over Khashoggi, insisting he does not want to imperil a “tremendous order” of $110 billion of weapons he says will support 500,000 U.S. jobs - figures that experts say are highly exaggerated.

His fiancée, Hatice Cengiz, told an audience on a visit to London she was disappointed with Trump’s approach.

“I am disappointed by the actions of the leadership in many countries, particularly in the U.S.,” she said.

“President Trump should help reveal the truth and ensure justice be served. He should not pave the way for a cover-up of my fiance’s murder. Let’s not let money taint our conscience and compromise our values.”

When asked who was ultimately responsible for the killing, Cengiz told Reuters in an interview in Turkish: “This took place inside a Saudi diplomatic mission ... In such circumstances, the Saudi Arabian authorities are responsible for this.”

Trump has said Prince Mohammed, who has consolidated control over Saudi security and intelligence agencies over the past three years, bore ultimate responsibility for the operation that led to Khashoggi’s killing.

She said the West is considered a stronghold of human rights and democracy so it should stand up to the killers of her husband-to-be.

Khashoggi, 59, entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on Oct. 2 to obtain paperwork necessary for his upcoming marriage to Cengiz, a Turkish national. He did not walk out of the consulate. Cengiz first raised the alarm.

Saudi Arabia initially denied any involvement in Khashoggi’s disappearance but a Saudi official eventually attributed his death to a botched attempt to return him to the kingdom.

Later, Riyadh said the killing was premeditated and Prince Mohammed has vowed that the killers would be brought to justice.

Saudi Arabia has detained 18 people and dismissed five senior government officials as part of the investigation into Khashoggi’s murder. Some were members of a 15-man hit team, many of them Saudi intelligence operatives, who flew into Istanbul hours before Khashoggi’s death, Turkish security sources say.

MURDER IN ISTANBUL

“This incident, this assassination, took place in the Saudi consulate,” Cengiz said, speaking through a translator. “So the Saudi authorities probably know how such a murder took place.”

“They need to explain what happened,” said Cengiz, who was sombre, guarded and appeared at times on the verge of tears.


Slideshow (3 Images)

When asked what she would say to Prince Mohammed if she ever got the chance to speak to him, she said: “I don’t think that will ever happen.”

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan, who Cengiz praised, has urged Riyadh to disclose who ordered the murder and prosecutors have prepared an extradition request for 18 suspects from Saudi Arabia.

“The explanations given so far by Saudi Arabia are not sufficient,” Cengiz said. “I want to know the details of who is responsible.”

Asked if she held Crown Prince Mohammed or the Saudi royal family responsible, she said:

“I and my government would like all those responsible, from the person who gave this order to those who carried it out, to be brought to justice and punished under international law,” she said.

Cengiz said she had not been contacted by Prince Mohammed or the Saudi royal family, nor offered any condolences by them.

Cengiz met Khashoggi in May at a conference in Istanbul and their relationship blossomed. But the decision to marry in Istanbul, whose mosques reminded Khashoggi of his hometown Medina, set off a paper chase that ultimately ended in death.

Turkish law required that Khashoggi, who was divorced, provide proof that he did not have a wife and thus his trip to the consulate. Cengiz said she had been shown no recordings of what happened inside the consulate and that she got most of her information from the media.

“Like everyone else, I am still waiting for answers,” she said. “The world should know who instigated, were involved in and committed this crime.”

Paradise is back in business: How Boracay has changed since its clean-up


In a bid to return it to its once pristine ways, President Rodrigo Duterte enforced a six-month closure of the island.
Well, the wait is over and headline-grabbing Boracay is once again open for business – with a few tweaks and changes.
Here’s what’s different and what’s back to its former glory on Philippines’ most famous holiday island:
000_1AA8SD
Fishermen ride a powerboat during the sunset on the Philippine island of Boracay on October 25, 2018. The Philippines re-opens its crown jewel resort island Boracay to holidaymakers on October 26, after a six-month clean up aimed at repairing the damage inflicted by years of unrestrained mass tourism. Source: Noel Celis/AFP

The party’s over

While Boracay was once a place where you “could party any time you want” on the beach – in the words of dive instructor Michael A Martillano – the island will now be restricting this.
Drinking is banned on the beach, along with smoking and interestingly, vomiting.
And the famous beach rave “LaBoracay” that once drew tens of thousands of tourists in May, is now a thing of the past – banned, most likely forever.
Also, fireworks are banned after 9pm, so don’t go getting any ideas.
000_14B1T1
Gina Galan, 45, collects plastic bottles on the Boracay dumpsite called “materials recovery facility (MRF)” in the Philippine island of Boracay on April 25, 2018. Source: Noel Celis/AFP

Beachfront is all beach

The once hectic and busy beachfront has now been cleared. All of the masseuses, touts, and even the creators of giant novelty sandcastles have been removed.
Deckchairs and umbrellas that once dominated stretches of sand have also been banned.
All of the buildings and businesses within 30 metres of the water’s edge have been bulldozed and pushed back to create a clear buffer zone.
000_Hkg1860402
Tourists receive a massage by the shore of Boracay island on before the island was closed for clean up. November 8, 2008. Source: Jay Directo/AFP

Watersports no more

The days of racing through the formerly-tranquil waters on the back of a jet ski are over.
All watersports, including kiteboarding and jet skiing, have been banned. Even scuba diving is off limits until the surrounding waters have recovered from the decades of abuse.
A team of marine biologists and divers are currently carrying out an assessment of marine life, only after this will the diving ban be re-evaluated.
000_Hkg1860387
The famed Boracay giant sandcastles are now banned on the Philippine island. Source: Jay Directo/AFP

Gambling’s a goner

On Duterte’s orders, the island’s casinos have had their doors closed indefinitely.
Government officials confirmed on Friday that all three casinos have had their licenses revoked. The plan is for Duterte to sign an executive order banning casinos on the island, but for the time being the doors have been padlocked and there’ll be no gambling taking place.
000_14C1IO
Volunteers participate in a coastal clean-up on Bulabog beach on the Philippine island of Boracay on April 26, 2018. Source: Noel Celis/AFP

No booking, no stay

One of the biggest changes likely to affect travellers is the limit to visitors. Authorities hope to limit the number on the island at any one time but restricting the number of hotel rooms.
Almost 400 hotels and restaurants have been ordered to close after they were found violating environmental laws. Airlines and ferries are also restricted.
In the past, Boracay could top out at 40,000 visitors in high season. That has now been limited to a maximum of just 19,200 tourists allowed at any one time.
Given that Boracay measures a mere 10 square kilometres, this seems a fair number