Leo Varadkar, Ireland’s taoiseach (prime minister), has told US politicians that he is against banning goods from Israel’s settlements in the occupied West Bank.
Ireland’s elected representatives are coming under pressure from corporate lobbyists to drop a proposed ban on goods from Israel’s settlements in the occupied West Bank.
A briefing paper submitted to members of the Oireachtas – the Irish parliament – warns there may be a hostile response from the US if the Occupied Territories Bill becomes law.
The bill, which has already won approval from both houses in the Oireachtas, would outlaw imports if they were grown or manufactured on land seized by Israel during the June 1967 war.
The paper was written by Europe Economics and Optimity Advisors, two groups which lobby on behalf of major companies.
It was commissioned by a research service within the Oireachtas. Although that service claims to produce “impartial” briefings for Ireland’s lawmakers, the conclusions of the paper strongly resemble threats made by US Congress members recently.
According to the paper, the Occupied Territories Bill “could create legal issues for US companies operating in both Ireland and Israel.” Since the 1970s, it says, US firms have been prohibited from cooperating with boycott measures targeting Israel.
The paper – published below – warns of “a serious negative impact on the Irish economy” if the US sanctions the country should the bill become law.
That conclusion is similar to a threat made by Israel’s supporters in Washington. In a letter dated 30 January, 10 members of the US Congress warned Ireland’s political leaders that the Occupied Territories Bill “could have broader consequences.”
Headed by veteran New York lawmaker Peter King, the 10 members of Congress wrote, “We do not want to see the strong economic links between our two countries [Ireland and the US] weakened due to ill-considered legislation.”
“Absurd assertion”
Sadaka, a Dublin group campaigning for Palestinian rights, has rejected the warnings made by the corporate lobbyists.
Gerry Liston, a Sadaka representative, said it was an “absurd assertion” that the legislation could bring about the withdrawal of US foreign direct investment in Ireland.
Fianna Fáil, one of Ireland’s largest political parties, criticized the briefing paper too.
Niall Collins, the Fianna Fáil spokesperson on foreign affairs, took issue with the predictions that Ireland could lose investment.
Despite how he has taken a vocal stance in favor of the bill, Collins said that no US corporation had reached out to him about its contents.
“As public representatives, we get lobbied about all sorts of stuff,” said Collins. “But nobody from Google, Facebook or anybody else has contacted me to make their views known.”
While a majority in the Oireachtas has backed the bill, the Dublin government is firmly against it.
Leo Varadkar, Ireland’s taoiseach (prime minister), replied to the letter from the 10 members of the US Congress by noting his opposition to the bill “on both political and legal grounds.” The Irish Times has reported that Varadkar’s government is likely to prevent the bill from entering law.
The main argument which the government has made against the law is that trade is a matter handled by the European Union and Ireland is, therefore, unable to impose import restrictions unilaterally.
But Gerry Liston of Sadaka stated that a number of legal experts have analyzed the bill and found it compatible with EU law.
Liston complained that the briefing paper by Europe Economics and Optimity Advisors failed to mention the assessments supporting the bill, even though they were cited during Oireachtas debates.
Although the briefing paper echoes the threats by members of the US Congress, it does list some of the arguments put forward by the bill’s supporters.
One such argument is that a ban could have a “domino effect,” according to the paper. Campaigners for a ban on Israeli settlement goods, it notes, are inspired by the international mobilization which helped end white minority rule in South Africa.
Ciaran Tierney is a journalist based in Galway, Ireland. He won the Irish current affairs and politics blog of the year award at the Tramline, Dublin in 2018. Website: ciarantierney.com.
Releasing a half-baked U.S. proposal that is bound to fail would legitimize Israeli annexation, give Saudi Arabia leverage, and strengthen Iran and its allies.
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Jared Kushner on June 21, 2017 in Jerusalem. (AMOS BEN GERSHOM/GPO VIA GETTY IMAGES)
BYROBERT SATLOFF|
The final absentee ballots have not yet been counted in Israel’s election, but the results so far indicate that Benjamin Netanyahu is well on his way toward cobbling together the 61-seat majority needed to form a new governing coalition. This would give Netanyahu an unprecedented fifth term as Israel’s prime minister.
If Netanyahu does form a government, attention will soon turn to the Trump administration’s long-awaited Middle East peace plan. Since the U.S. plan was based on close consultations with Netanyahu, it was assumed that the only stumbling block to its launch would be his defeat and replacement by a new leader with different ideas on relations with the Palestinians. Netanyahu’s apparent victory means that the White House rollout of the plan could be imminent. That would be a disaster.
It would be a serious mistake for U.S. President Donald Trump to take the still-secret proposals devised by his son-in-law Jared Kushner and his colleagues and issue them in the name of the United States.
The problem is not simply that the circumstances are ripe for failure, due to the deep political chasm between Israelis and Palestinians combined and the Trump administration’s inability to be both a friend to Israel and an honest broker of peace between Israelis and Palestinians. The Kushner plan also stands a good chance of actually setting back U.S. interests in three critical areas: It might lead to annexation of the West Bank, it could give the Saudi government leverage over the United States that it doesn’t currently have, and it would distract from Trump’s signature achievement of putting real pressure on Iran’s government.
Issuing the Kushner plan risks triggering a chain of events that would result in a decision by Netanyahu to annex parts of the contested West Bank, a step that even the most conservative and nationalist Israeli governments over the past half-century have declined to take. Annexation—or, as many Israelis prefer to say euphemistically, “extending Israeli civil law to territories currently under military rule”—is already the platform of key parties Netanyahu needs to form a governing coalition. In addition, a large majority of his Likud party’s parliamentary delegation supports the idea.
In the final hours of the campaign, Netanyahu himself endorsed the idea of annexing parts of the territories as a gambit to make sure the Likud didn’t lose voters to parties further to the right. Controversial though his last-minute move may have been, Likud’s success suggests it was a smart one. However, the shrewd and risk-averse Netanyahu would most likely prefer to find a way to keep the murky status quo, in which Israel maintains security control over the entire West Bank and channels support to many existing Israeli settlements while holding out the admittedly dim prospect of a diplomatic resolution with the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority.
This awkward situation, in which Israel and the PA have strained political ties but effective security cooperation, has proven surprisingly resilient. Few love the status quo, but it is not so objectionable that either Netanyahu or Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has walked away from it. It may not have brought a final peace deal, but it has sustained the PA as a reasonably well-functioning governing entity—by regional standards—and protected the West Bank from becoming a platform for rocket and terrorist attacks against Israel.
The fact that the Israeli-Palestinian status quo survived the move of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, the closing of a separate U.S. consulate general that traditionally served Palestinians, severe cuts in U.S. aid to the West Bank, and the closing of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s representative office in Washington—measures that collectively appear to Palestinians as a punitive attack—is a testament to its durability.
That surprisingly sustainable house of cards may finally come crumbling down if Abbas rejects the Kushner plan, which he has already given every indication of doing. In turn, Israeli rightists will seize on Abbas’s “no” to argue that Israel has no negotiating partner, gutting a key rationale for keeping the status quo alive.
Instead, rightist politicians will argue that, with no partner, Israel should simply extend its sovereignty to key parts of the West Bank (i.e., annex them), just as it did 38 years ago on the Golan Heights—and they will point out that Trump’s recent decision to recognize the legality of the Golan annexation is a powerful hint that the White House will greenlight West Bank annexation, too.
To entice these right-of-Likud parties into his coalition, Netanyahu may find himself forced to accede to this demand, especially if it comes with the sweetener of their support for new legislation that protects sitting prime ministers from criminal prosecution—which would allow him to stay in office despite facing a pending criminal indictment on corruption charges.
The morning after a Middle East peace plan is issued in his name, Trump will face a slew of problems he doesn’t currently have to deal with.
Israel’s annexation of parts of the West Bank, if it is done outside an agreement with the Palestinians, will trigger charges from Arab and European capitals that Israel has violated its legal commitments both under United Nations resolutions and existing Israeli-Palestinian agreements, and they are likely to take steps to punish Israel internationally.
Moreover, annexation will probably sound the death knell for Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation and perhaps for the PA itself, offering enemies of peace both a substantive and a propaganda bonanza. And unlike the move of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, on which the U.S. Congress was on the record with strong bipartisan support for more than two decades, annexation will threaten to splinter U.S. opinion when it comes to backing Israel, affecting a far larger slice of the political spectrum than just the increasingly anti-Israel progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
Even if Kushner has already factored in all these negative repercussions of persuading his father-in-law to issue the peace plan, he might still win the day by reasoning that only a dramatic change to the status quo can shake the parties into rethinking their traditional positions and open up new possibilities. He likely assumes that key Arab states—led by Saudi Arabia—are poised to bless his plan, giving it vital backing that will compel Abbas not to reject it out of hand.
But there are two problems with this assumption. First, the Saudis are unlikely to offer even a tepid endorsement of the peace plan without similar backing from Israel’s Arab peace partners, Egypt and Jordan. Just last week, Jordan reportedly rejected a U.S. offer to mediate a narrower issue—a simmering dispute with Israel on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif—because it accuses Washington of bias on matters related to Jerusalem. And Egypt is firmly part of the Arab consensus that publicly rejected the Trump administration’s decision to recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan, a step that severely curtailed Arab room for maneuver on a future peace plan.
The friendship between the Trump and Al Saud families notwithstanding, both Jordan and Egypt have shown spine in recent years in resisting Saudi pressure to take steps they view as contrary to their national interests, and endorsing a plan that earns a Palestinian rejection would almost certainly be a bridge too far.
The second problem with the Saudis-will-back-us scenario is that the Saudi leadership is not stupid. If the fate of the Kushner plan is in the hands of King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, that provides them with critical leverage at a moment when broader U.S.-Saudi relations are facing their worst tensions since the 9/11 attacks.
Viewed from Riyadh, the deepening bipartisan criticism in the United States of Saudi Arabia—manifested in repeated congressional votes condemning Riyadh on the war in Yemen, its detention and prosecution of human rights activists, and, of course, the assassination of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi—must seem galling. While the near-universal view in U.S. policy circles is that the solution to this problem begins with the Saudi crown prince accepting some measure of responsibility for the heinous actions of his subordinates, the leverage provided by the Kushner plan will give Riyadh the power to turn the tables on the White House.
It would not be surprising if the Saudis demand that Trump fix their problem in Congress as the price for Saudi backing for the Kushner plan.Any administration efforts to strong-arm Republican critics of Saudi policy would only worsen the underlying crisis in U.S.-Saudi relations, to the detriment of U.S. security interests in the broader region. And this too would all be because the president had needlessly advanced his son-in-law’s peace plan.
Finally, in addition to triggering a negative spiral in U.S.-Israeli, Israeli-Palestinian, and U.S.-Saudi ties, moving forward with the Kushner plan would distract from the president’s signature achievement in the Middle East: the unexpectedly effective impact of the so-called maximum pressure campaign on Iran.
When Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and reimposed U.S. sanctions on Iran last year, there was good reason to be skeptical. But the administration has made impressive headway in its effort to impose a cost on Iran for its objectionable behavior. So far, the campaign has compelled nearly two dozen customers of Iranian oil exports to bring their purchases down to zero, severely exacerbating the troubles of Iran’s economy. To see Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah beg his followers for donations, as he did in a recent speech, is a clear sign that Tehran is running low on cash.
The Trump administration should not give Iran and its local Islamist allies a political victory by issuing a Middle East peace plan that is likely to earn swift rejection by the Palestinians and strong criticism even from longtime U.S. allies. It makes little sense to hand Iran’s supreme leader and his regional partners a propaganda coup at a moment when the U.S. pressure campaign might actually be bearing fruit. Tehran might even sense opportunity and scrape together enough money—along with Islamist sympathizers in Qatar and Turkey—to help Hamas and Islamic Jihad take advantage of Abbas’s weakness to make a play for power in the West Bank.
Issuing the Middle East peace plan in the current environment is a lose-lose-lose proposition. It is not easy to devise a U.S. policy proposal that could unleash forces that drive a stake in the heart of U.S.-Israeli relations while destroying the Palestinian Authority, that could worsen the already severe crisis in U.S.-Saudi ties, and that could provide a powerful boost to the mullahs in Iran, but there is a nontrivial chance the Kushner peace plan would do all of this.
Right now, the plan is still Kushner’s, not Trump’s. For the sake of important U.S. interests in the Middle East, the president should ensure it stays that way.
Robert Satloff is the executive director of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Five men are being investigated by UK police over allegations of involvement in the Rwandan genocide, The Guardian reports.
Scotland Yard said on Monday they had received a referral from authorities in Rwanda last year, which led to British officers travelling there to aid the investigation.
“As a result, we have subsequently commenced an investigation, which will initially involve a review of all the documentation transferred from Rwanda. Given the complexities involved, this is expected to be a protracted and lengthy process,” a police spokesperson said.
The recent case comes as Rwanda marked the 25th anniversary of the brutal genocide which took place in 1994 that saw over 800,000 mainly Tutsi Rwandans murdered.
Carlos Monje, Jr., Twitter director of Public Policy and Philanthropy for U.S. & Canada and Facebook policy director Neil Potts sworn in before testifying at Senate Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee hearing titled "Stifling Free Speech: Technological Censorship and the Public Discourse." on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., April 10, 2019. REUTERS/Jeenah Moon
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican senators on Wednesday said Alphabet Inc’s Google, Facebook Inc and Twitter Inc discriminate against conservative viewpoints and suppress free speech, suggesting anti-trust action could be a solution.
Senator Ted Cruz, who chairs the Senate Judiciary subcommittee, said many Americans believe big tech firms are biased against conservatives and pointed to some anecdotal examples. While no one wants “government speech police,” he said there are other remedies.
“If we have tech companies using the powers of monopoly to censor political speech, I think that raises real antitrust issues,” Cruz said at a U.S. Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing.
Facebook, Twitter and Google denied their platforms are politically biased, and Democratic lawmakers said there was no evidence to back Republican bias claims although Democrats have criticized the firms on other grounds.
The Senate hearing was a sign that Republicans do not intend to relent in their year-old campaign against the tech companies. Last month, U.S. President Donald Trump again accused social media firms of favoring Democratic opponents without offering evidence.
“We do have a political bias issue here,” Republican Senator Mike Lee said.
Senators also raised the prospect that Congress could remove protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that give online platforms broad immunity for what users post.
Senator Mazie Hirono, the top Democrat on the panel, said Republicans claims are based on “nothing more than a mix of anecdotal evidence... and a failure to understand the companies algorithms and content moderation practices.”
Democratic presidential candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren said Facebook last month removed ads her campaign placed calling for Facebook’s breakup. “I want a social media marketplace that isn’t dominated by a single censor,” she said.
Carlos Monje, Twitter’s public policy director, said the site “does not use political viewpoints, perspectives or party affiliation to make any decisions, whether related to automatically ranking content on our service or how we develop or enforce our rules.”
Facebook public policy director Neil Potts said the company “does not favor one political viewpoint over another, nor does Facebook suppress conservative speech.”
Senator Josh Hawley told the firms they are not being transparent in how they make decisions. “This is a huge, huge problem,” he said.
Hirono said, “We cannot allow the Republican party to harass tech companies into weakening content moderation policies that already fail to remove hateful, dangerous and misleading content.”
Google was disinvited over a dispute about whether it offered an executive senior enough to testify.
The panel left an empty chair for Google. Cruz said he plans a future hearing to address what he called “Google’s censorship of free speech.”
Google said in a written statement submitted to the committee that it works to ensure “our products serve users of all viewpoints and remain politically neutral” but it acknowledged that “sometimes our content moderation systems do make mistakes.”
A tied election can’t mask the fact that Israel has shifted fundamentally to the right – and that all opposition is crushed
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu following the announcement of exit polls in Israel's parliamentary election at the party headquarters in Tel Aviv on 10 April (Reuters)
Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party emerged from Tuesday’s Israeli election tied with the Blue and White party, led by Benny Gantz and other high-powered generals.
Although each party has 35 seats in the 120-seat parliament, Netanyahu is now firmly in the driving seat.
The small far-right and religious extremist parties that were needed to make up a parliamentary majority lost no time in declaring their support for Netanyahu. That will allow him to establish his fourth consecutive government.
Netanyahu now enjoys the luxury of choosing between a narrow government of these far-right parties, and a right-wing national unity government embracing Gantz. The latter option would potentially command four-fifths of the seats in the Israeli Knesset.
Whatever his decision, Netanyahu is now set this summer to become Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, beating the record set by Israel’s founding father, David Ben Gurion.
Demand for "immunity" law
The only obstacle on the horizon – a set of corruption indictments against Netanyahu, announced by the attorney-general during the campaign – is certain to be swept away once Netanyahu has been formally installed as head of the next government by Israeli President Reuven Rivlin.
Netanyahu’s coalition partners are already insisting on the passing of special “immunity” legislation – which would make it impossible to indict a sitting prime minister – as a condition for their support.
Netanyahu is now set this summer to become Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, beating the record set by Israel’s founding father, David Ben Gurion
Bezalel Smotrich, of the far-right Union of Rightwing Parties, said such a law would “build trust among coalition members that the next government can rule for a full term”.
They understand that Netanyahu, given his track record, is their best meal ticket to a long-term place in government.
And Netanyahu’s own voters have demonstrated that they care not a whit whether he is corrupt, as long as he continues to promote a Jewish supremacist agenda.
Extolling Gaza rampage
Gantz’s success in matching Netanyahu’s tally of seats is impressive, given that he presided over a brand new party whose only policy seemed to be: “It’s time to get rid of Netanyahu.”
Retired Israeli general Benny Gantz (C), one of the leaders of the Blue and White on 10 April (AFP)
That showed there is a significant section of Israeli society fatigued by a decade of Netanyahu rule and the political and personal corruption he embodies.
But it also emphasised the continuing veneration by Israeli Jews of the army and its desire to find exclusively military solutions to political problems – not least, how to reach an accommodation with Palestinians and their claim to statehood.
It certainly does not, as some observers have claimed, signify an appetite among Israeli Jews for left-wing politics. Gantz and his fellow generals are not doves of any kind.
After all, the Blue and White party’s main selling point was Gantz’s pulverisation of Gaza in 2014, when he was army chief of staff in a military operation that killed more than 500 Palestinian children.
Collapse of opposition
Netanyahu’s victory is underscored by the two most dramatic trends of the election. Those relate to the collapse of the opposition to the right – both among the Jewish electorate, and among voters belonging to the Palestinian minority, a fifth of Israel’s population.
In many ways, the most shocking result is the diminishment of the Labor Party, which founded Israel and ruled it for decades, to just six seats. That turns it into a marginal, special-interest party.
The most shocking result is the diminishment of the Labor Party, which founded Israel and ruled it for decades, to just six seats
Combined with the four seats of the dovish Meretz party, that reduces what is commonly referred to in Israel as the “centre-left” to just 10 seats. According to a recent poll by the Israel Democracy Institute, only about 12 percent of Israeli Jews are still prepared to describe themselves as left-wing.
It is hard to see Labor ever recovering. If the trend continues, Labor and Meretz may need to merge in future elections to ensure they pass the polling threshold.
The 'leftwing threat'
The mistaken description of Labor as belonging to the left is a legacy of its early connections to European socialist parties and its development of a centrally planned economy in Israel’s first decades.
Labor’s emphasis on ethnic politics and communal segregation – the idea that Jewish and Palestinian citizens should live and learn apart – would have earned it a classification as an ultra-nationalist party anywhere but Israel.
Israeli PM Netanyahu pledges to annex West Bank settlements if re-elected
Nonetheless, Labor has in the past signalled that it wants to separate from parts of the occupied Palestinian territories, chiefly as a way to ensure that an expanded Israel – one that includes some of the larger, illegal settlements – remains overwhelmingly Jewish. Its policies have also been constrained, relative to the right, by concerns about Israel’s image abroad.
By shifting the political centre of gravity ever further rightwards, however, Netanyahu has clearly established the idea in most Israeli voters' minds that Labor is an extremist left-wing party that threatens to bring about the end of a Jewish state.
'Eliminating the Israeli state'
That was highlighted in the previous election, when Netanyahu not only fearmongered among Jewish voters that Palestinian citizens were coming out to vote “in droves”, but falsely blamed the left for “bussing” them to polling stations.
This process reached new levels of absurdity – and danger – in the current election campaign.
Netanyahu repeatedly warned that Gantz’s party – dominated by generals and extolling its security record in crushing Palestinians – was part of the centre-left.
Netanyahu argued that a vote for Gantz would result in Israeli-Palestinian parties acting as kingmakers in the next government and thereby help to “eliminate” the state of Israel.
Historic low turnout
The four Palestinian parties in the election race, running this time on two slates rather than as a single Joint List, have also struggled. They looked set to scrape through with a total of 10 seats, down from 13 in the last Knesset.
That is because turnout among Israel’s Palestinian citizens hit a historic low in this election; initial figures suggested it could be below 50 percent. This was markedly the most lacklustre campaign ever seen in Palestinian communities in Israel.
Palestinian parties took 10 seats at the election, with a much reduced turnout. Ayman Odeh, leader of Hadash-Ta'al party, on 9 April (Reuters)
The polling figures contrast sharply with voting rates among the minority of close to 90 percent back in the 1960s, and of 75 percent just two decades ago, as well as a turnout of 85 percent in local authority elections just a few months back.
The collapse of the vote marks the minority’s near-complete disillusionment with Israeli national politics, and their conclusion that a fundamental and irreversible rift has taken place with the Jewish majority.
Hidden cameras spy on voters
That was made clear last summer, when Israel passed the nation-state law, which made explicit that Israel was a state belonging exclusively to Jews, rather than to all Israeli citizens – thereby cementing the minority’s status as unwelcome spectators in a “Jewish democracy”.
As one Palestinian analyst noted to the daily Haaretz newspaper, Israeli politics is now like a perverse football game, in which there are two Jewish teams and Palestinian citizens serve as the ball. “Everybody’s kicking us and neither team wants us,” he said.
Netanyahu underscored that point on election day itself, when he pulled another of his incitement stunts against the Palestinian minority. He sent more than 1,000 activists armed with hidden video cameras to monitor polling stations in Palestinian communities.
Israel election: Why Israel desperately needs regime change
It was a gross violation of Israel’s election laws. But publicity over the cameras’ confiscation by police was another coup for Netanyahu’s fear-based politics.
He defended the move as ensuring the election’s conduct was “kosher”, the term used to denote food that accords with strict Jewish dietary laws.
Like his earlier “droves” comment, it sent a clear message that the very presence of Palestinian voters subverts a democratic process intended for Jews only, and that the extreme right he represents is uniquely prepared to take the necessary action to defend a Jewish state.
Palestinian parties ostracised
Netanyahu, however, cannot be solely blamed for this state of affairs. Previously the Labor Party, and now Gantz’s party of generals, actively conspired in Netanyahu’s carefully crafted narrative, presenting Palestinian citizens as a fifth column.
Gantz repeatedly distanced himself from the Palestinian parties in response to Netanyahu’s incitement, vowing to sit only with “Jewish and Zionist” parties.
Effectively, with that promise, he not only shot the Palestinian minority in the head, but himself in the foot. It meant he never stood a hope of winning enough seats to provide an alternative to Netanyahu.
Now, it seems, Israel’s 1.8 million Palestinian citizens have fully absorbed the lesson: that all the Jewish parties, bar the four-seat Meretz party, have stripped them of a legitimate claim to political rights inside a Jewish state.
Haggling over annexation
There are a few other significant take-homes from the results.
Religious extremist parties are now the kingmakers on the right. Between them, they won more than a fifth of the parliament. Netanyahu will almost certainly need them in the government, and they will demand socially influential ministries, further accelerating the shift to religious fundamentalism in Israel.
In the run-up to the coalition-building negotiations, one such party representing religious settlers has already demanded that it be given the education and justice ministries.
Netanyahu is also in a weak position to resist – assuming he wished to – the demands of the far-right parties to begin the process of formally annexing significant parts of the West Bank.
Media reports are already suggesting that post-election haggling will focus on demands from these far-right parties for some form of annexation, in return for their agreeing to pass immunity legislation to shield Netanyahu from corruption indictments.
That explains his comments in the last days of the campaign, in which he promised to annex swaths of the West Bank where the settlements are located.
As Netanyahu’s hold on power became clear on Tuesday, he made a speech encapsulating his style of speaking with a forked tongue. He told the crowds: “I intend to be the prime minister of all the citizens of Israel, right and left, Jews and non-Jews.”
To outsiders, it may have sounded conciliatory. To those in Israel who know Netanyahu, it sounded more like a threat from a man who understands that there is no one in Israel – right or left, Jew or non-Jew – in a position to resist his dictates.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Air navigation law hinges itself on the heading of liability. The issue is bifurcated into criminal liability and civil liability.
by Dr. Ruwantissa Abeyratne-9 April 2019
Writing from Montreal
Whether it is a design defect or manufacturing defect, courts, particularly in The United States, have been inclined to treat both the same, on the basis that in both instances the product would be equally dangerous and the attendant damage to the consumer (or bystander) would be the same. In the United States, The Restatement of the Law of Torts, Section 402 A of which says that one who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product - applies which extends the damage caused by a product rendered defective by a manufacturing fault to a design defect, where the manufacturer must bear the cost of compensation which is usually covered by insurance, placing the ultimate burden is on the insurer. Many States in the United States adhere to the doctrine of strict liability in such cases, where liability accrues irrespective of fault. Strict liability is distinguished from fault liability, the latter requiring the establishment of fault i.e. negligence on the part of the manufacturer.
Directly in point is the case of the case of Sikkelee v Precision Airmotive Corporation. The case involved a pilot who, in July 2005 was piloting a Cessna aircraft that crashed shortly after take-off. The pilot's wife filed a wrongful death action against the defendant engine manufacturer – who claimed during adjudication that he was only the designer of the product - among others, alleging that the engine carburetor was defective and was responsible for the crash. The engine in question had been manufactured in 1969 and the defendant was aware that the engine was defective. The federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had sent a communication in 1971 to the manufacturer and subsequent communications thereafter about 17 issues regarding defects in screws in the engine. The court held that even if, as claimed, the defendant was just the designer of the product – he would have the same duty of care to the plaintiff as did the manufacturer.
The question arises whether an aircraft manufacturer must merely ensure that an aircraft is safe to fly and that there is no attendant responsibility for the manufacturer to make an aircraft “safe” to crash. This distinguishes between the manufacturer’s liability for not making the aircraft perform safe navigation, and not making the aircraft “safe” to land in water in an emergency. In other words, the manufacturer would be liable for avionics but not necessarily liable for fixing an apparatus that could be deployed in a landing on water. This principle was enunciated in the 1966 analogy of Evans v. General Motors Corp where the court held that it was unreasonable to expect a manufacturer to make a motor vehicle accident proof or fool-proof when the danger to be avoided is obvious to all. What the court held was that the vehicle must be reasonably fit to carry out its major function of providing safe transport, but it cannot be expected that it would be equipped with a pontoon if it accidentally fell into the water.
The above analogy does not apply where the defect would lie in the core function of the vehicle – that of providing safe transport. In other worlds a car cannot be equipped by the manufacturer with defective brakes or a defective steering wheel. Similarly, an aircraft manufacturer cannot claim immunity from liability if a defective piece of avionics equipment is installed in an aircraft.
A good analogy in this regard involves faulty aeronautical charts. There are private individuals and companies producing aeronautical charts for air navigation and an incorrectly produced aeronautical chart could be a serious safety impediment. An accident caused as a result of the technical crew being misled by an aeronautical chart could ground an action for products liability and civil damages. An early case in this regard is Aetna Casualty v. Jeppesen where an aircraft operated by Bonanza Airlines crashed in 1964 while landing in Las Vegas, Nevada. The survivors of the crew, alleging that the crash was caused by a defective approach chart, sued Jeppesen—the manufacturer of the chart. Jeppesen was found to be liable as there was evidence of a flaw in the chart. The flaw was that the graphic depiction of the profile in question which covered a distance of 3 miles from the airport was the same depiction of the plan which covered a distance of 15 miles. The trial judge found this discrepancy one which radically departed from Jeppesen’s usual standards of graphic depiction which would have misled the pilot in his approach to the airport.
In the 1978 case of Times Mirror Co. v. Sisk where the case concerned the crash of a Pan American Boeing 707 cargo freighter into a mountain located on the approach path to Manila International Airport in the Philippines. the court was faced with the fact that, while the approach path had been approved by the Government of Philippines and the chart used for the approach by the pilot was a standard Jeppesen chart, it had not shown the presence of the mountain. The court had no difficulty in concluding in favour of Jeppesen, on the ground that the pilot had been so off track that the chart could not be considered the proximate cause of the crash.
Aeronautical charts are products that could impugn the manufacturer if they are defective. However, it has to be proved that the manufacturer of the chart had misled the pilot with the information provided in the chart. The 1985 case of Fluor Corp. v. Jeppesen & Co, which was similar in circumstances to the Sisk case, concerned the crash of a Lockheed L-1329 Jet Star on approach near Lake Saranac, New York. The plane hit a mountain which 2,140 ft while attempting to land on a night when it was snowing, and the weather was inclement. The mountain was not shown in the Jeppesen chart. The crash took the lives of all passengers. The plaintiffs sued Jeppesen on breach of warranty, negligence and strict products liability. Jeppesen claimed that the crew were responsible for the accident as they were flying too low in adverse weather conditions. While the trial judge did not instruct the jury on strict products liability, he exonerated the chart-maker on the counts of breach of warranty and negligence.
There was an interesting issue in the Fluor Corp case where, while the trail judge accepted that an aeronautical chart was a “product” he opined that it did not come under the heading of strict liability as only items whose physical properties rendered them innately dangerous, such as machines and mechanical devices, explosives could be susceptible to actions grounded on strict products liability, The Appeal court judge—Justice Gates—disagreed, saying that although a sheet of paper might not be dangerous per se, it would be difficult indeed to conceive of a saleable commodity with more inherent lethal potential than an aid to air navigation that, contrary to its on design standards, fails to list the highest land mass immediately surrounding a landing site.
The next issue is the liability of the State which certifies an aircraft with a defective product.
Annex 8 to The Chicago Convention which addresses issues of airworthiness of aircraft provides that the State of manufacture is required to ensure that each aircraft, including parts manufactured by sub-contractors, conforms to the approved design, and that the State taking responsibility for the production of parts manufactured under the design approval has to ensure that the parts conform to the approved design.
In the United States, the Federal Government is a potential defendant in this context and could be liable in negligence. In the 1982 case of Medley v. United States it was alleged on behalf of the plaintiff that the Federal Government had not only created an unsafe flight route but had also perpetuated that destructive error in an aeronautical chart that did not indicate the error. The surviving victims of the crash and the carrier’s insurers sued the Federal Government for death, personal injury and property damage. It was argued for the Federal Government that the acts of the government in this instance came under the “discretionary function exception” under the Feral Tort Claims Act. District Judge Aguilar held that the alleged acts of the government are clearly of an operational character and so not within the discretionary function exception to liability. The judge also held that the government had a duty to perform acts with and functions with due care. When this duty is discharged in a negligent manner, the government is guilty of negligence and it cannot escape liability by invoking the discretionary function exception. As there is no discretion to conduct discretionary operations negligently.
Air navigation law hinges itself on the heading of liability. The issue is bifurcated into criminal liability and civil liability. These two areas in turn affect three categories of respondents: the State: the corporate entity and the private individual. With privatization rapidly becoming a prolific tool of the aviation industry, the corporate entities who are responsible for the various industries within the aviation spectrum will be liable under legislation.
The author is former Senior Legal Officer at the International Civil Aviation Organization and is currently Senior Associate, Air Law and Policy at Aviation Strategies International
The first democratically-elected government of 2008, headed by President Mohamed Nasheed
Elections, a glimmer of hope that things are changing for the better
Solih is a quintessential democrat who prefers to rule by consensus rather than diktat
9 April 2019
Last week’s parliamentary elections in the Maldives have put the Indian Ocean archipelago on a new path, the path of true democracy in which State institutions will function as they ought to.
From 2008, when the Maldives got a new democratic constitution, till the end of 2018, when virtual dictator Abdulla Yameen was unseated in a Presidential election, Maldivian politics was pretty much the same as it was under long-standing dictator Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.
The only change was that the President was democratically elected. For the rest, it continued to be a one-man rule with the political class from the President down to the members of Parliament unabashedly looting the State and squabbling over the spoils of office.
But since the parliamentary elections of April 6, 2019, there is more than a glimmer of hope that things are changing for the better. There is a chance that Maldivian politicians will take the cue from the voters and strike a new path, in which power will be exercised in the service of the people and not to grab more power and use it to serve narrow personal and partisan ends. The April 6 elections were won convincingly by the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) which had earlier spearheaded the long and hard struggle to end the long-standing dictatorship of Gayoom in 2008 and had fought the Abdulla Yameen constitutional dictatorship between 2013 and 2018 tooth and nail.
Fortunately for the MDP, the incumbent President, Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, and the newly-elected Parliament are on the same page
By the morning of April 8, the MDP had won 64 of the 87 seats in the Majlis (parliament). The Jumhoory Party (JP) led by Parliament Speaker Gasim Ibrahim won seven seats, the Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) got five and its twin Peoples’ National Congress (PNC) got two. The PPM and PNC are led by former President Abdulla Yameen. Yameen’s dismal performance despite getting 41% of the votes in the September 2018 Presidential election, shows the radical change taking place in the thinking of Maldivian voters.
MDP’s Electoral Planks
While Yameen fought on the plank of giving the Maldivian a strong government to enable rapid economic development, basically a repetition of his regime from 2013 to 2018, the MDP fought on the basis of a progressive and democratic manifesto under which the State would not be a Leviathan but a caring and transparent agency.
High on the agenda was the dismantling of the centralized power structure inherent in the Executive Presidential system. The tendency of leaders to misuse the office of President for self-aggrandizement and ride roughshod over opponents, rivals and critics had to be ended.
According to Hamid Abdul Ghafoor, international spokesman of the MDP, the government will now speedily usher in the parliamentary system and make the Chief Executive (the Prime Minister) answerable to parliament. The existing Executive Presidential system, with a high concentration of power in the hands of the President (though directly elected by all Maldivians), had led to misrule, unbridled corruption and manipulation of all institutions of the State.
Fortunately for the MDP, the incumbent President, Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, and the newly-elected Parliament are on the same page. Solih’sMDP and Parliament is now overwhelmingly MDP. This will make the change over to the Westminster system easy. Solih is a quintessential democrat who prefers to rule by consensus rather than diktat. If the change over to the Westminster system does take place, Solih is expected to be a ceremonial President with real power being exercised by former President Mohamed Nasheed who is expected to be the Prime Minister.
The second plank was the ending of the system of corruption which had eaten into the vitals of all institutions from the Presidency downwards. MDP spokesman Ghafoor describes the Maldivian political system as a “kleptocracy” and the typical Maldivian politician as a “kleptocrat”.
The MDP’s aim is to destroy the kleptocratic structure root and branch, he says. Indeed, President Solih’s first words after his party’s victory were that the people have voted out corruption.
The third plank is to liberate the political system from the clutches of rich businessmen. After the MDP victory. former President Nasheed said that the days of “Rule by Rolex watches and Kohinoor diamonds” were over. It was therefore not surprising that the MDP had broken with the Jumhoory Party led by tycoon Gasim Ibrahim, who is the archetypal Maldivian businessman-politician.
The fourth plank was the overhauling of the judiciary, which had been systematically subverted by successive governments. Given the democratic credentials of MDP leader Nasheed and President Solih, the Maldives could see a more evenly spread out economic development. The government is likely to eschew expensive, grandiose and allegedly kickback-ridden projects built with Chinese loans. Government is likely to be more transparent in regard to deals with foreign countries, especially China. Relations with India are expected to be given top priority which will ensure that New Delhi and Washington do not get jittery and turn the world against the government.
The April 6 elections have brought about much-needed stability to the Maldives, a feature the country had not experienced since the first democratic election in 2008
Solih-Nasheed Unity
One of the most encouraging features of the current political situation in the Maldives is the equanimity with which President Solih and other leaders of the MDP, especially, Nasheed, are handling ticklish issues. MDP leaders have also shown remarkable unity. Rumours that Solih would sideline Nasheed once he became President, proved to be untrue. Significantly, even after the stunning electoral victory of the MDP, President Solih’s cabinet will continue to have representatives of the now-defunct coalition which defeated President Yameen in the September 2018 Presidential election.
“This is as per an understanding already arrived at. We do not want to upset the apple cart unnecessarily. Stability is the need of the hour. The Jumhoory Party, which fought against the MDP in the parliamentary elections in alliance with Yameen’s PPM, will continue to be part of the Solih-cabinet,” explained Hamid Abdul Ghafoor, spokesman of the MDP.
Stability Brought About
The April 6 elections have brought about much-needed stability to the Maldives, a feature the country had not experienced since the first democratic election in 2008. The first democratically-elected government of 2008, headed by President Mohamed Nasheed, was overthrown in 2012 by his own allies such as the Jumhoory Party and the Adaalath Party in conjunction with former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, his half-brother Abdulla Yameen, and the chiefs of the army and the police.
The first parliamentary elections held under the new constitution in 2009 had thrown up an unstable combination of parties which hamstrung President Nasheed. President Yameen made up for lack of numbers in Parliament by crass manipulation using emergency powers as well as money and muscle power. But Yameen’s tactics alienated the masses who rejected him in the September 2018 Presidential election. Yameen was defeated by Ibrahim Solih of the MDP, backed by a grand coalition of opposition parties. But this coalition was not built to last as it had disparate elements in it. Therefore, from the very beginning, the MDP was clear that it would fight the April 2019 parliamentary elections alone and secure a good majority. The MDP was particularly keen on not having the Jumhoory Party (JP) of Gasim Ibrahim in its camp as the JP was known as a party based on money and muscle power and that basically, it was interested in making money by using State power.
As expected, the Jumhoory Party left the coalition and linked up with the discredited PPM and PNC led by former President Yameen. Former President Gayoom and the Islamist Adaalath Party stuck to the MDP coalition. But neither the senior Gayoom nor the Adaalath Party is an internal threat to the MDP-led coalition, given the MDP’s overwhelming numbers in parliament.
-10 April 2019
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Jared Kushner on June 21, 2017 in Jerusalem. 
The only change was that the President was democratically elected. For the rest, it continued to be a one-man rule with the political class from the President down to the members of Parliament unabashedly looting the State and squabbling over the spoils of office.