United States’ Power Is Inherently Not Only False, But Dangerous

We believe that the United States should have good relations with all countries but they should have not attachment to said countries

 

by Anwar A Khan-2019-05-09

 

The language coming from the Trump administration is that of straight-up regime change. Senator Marco Rubio is crafting Latin America policy for the White House, with John Bolton screaming “Troika of Tyranny” at the top of his lungs. Not that we should have expected anything less.

 

It is an operetta to damned Guaidó for pushing the envelope in Venezuela. If you were a no-name politician in the Venezuelan legislature, only to become a household name in less than a year, you might also have a sense of invincibility, as I have heard. And if you had the senior-most officials of the world’s most powerful country rooting you on and throwing down sanctions on your mortal enemy, well, that’s even more reason to keep screaming into the bullhorn.

 

Guaidó is in no mood to capitulate to Maduro. Surrounded by disaffected members of the Venezuelan army near the La Carlota base in Caracas, the opposition leader has pledged to continue the fight and urged Venezuela’s senior officers and rank-and-file troops to choose the constitution over Maduro. “People of Venezuela,” Guaidó said, “we will go to the street with the armed forces to continue taking the streets until we consolidate the end of usurpation, which is already irreversible.” A dullard’s ranting!

 

Back in Washington, Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, National Security Adviser Bolton, and Senator Rubio all seconded the motion. “Estamos con ustedes!” Pence tweeted. “We are with you! America will stand with you until freedom and democracies are restored.” Other pudding heads raving!

 

Bolton, speaking in a rare press conference outside the White House, stated that a post-Maduro future for Venezuela was on the minds of US officials. “We have been planning for what we call the day after—the day after Maduro—for quite some time,” he told reporters. “It’s been very much on our mind that we can provide a lot of assistance to the Guaidó government when he assumes power to try to get the Venezuelan out of the ditch that Maduro has put it in,” as he is a cruddyblackguard.

 

In the end, we do not know where Venezuela’s political crisis is heading. The possibilities are endless. As it stands now, the country is in a holding pattern, with Guaidó trying his best to incite a rebellion from within the ranks of the army but Maduro thus far keeping control of his men. The vast majority of the army remains on the side of Maduro, perhaps out of fear for their lives or concerns about instigating a civil war.

 

All this could end with Maduro making the decision to vacate his chair and search for asylum, though that is highly unlikely unless his supporters in the military push him out. Alternatively, there could be a split in the Venezuelan armed forces between pro- and anti-Maduro factions, which would precipitate a civil war and result in more refugees and an even direr economic catastrophe. Venezuela’s neighbours could conceivably step up and organise a Latin American coalition of the willing, although this too is far-fetched, given the political capital such a campaign would require and the popular opposition it would create. Or, in a far more likely scenario, Venezuela could go through a slow burn for months or even years. But it is because of American establishment.

 

But whatever comes to pass, the United States should check its regime change impulses at the door. The propensity in Washington on both sides of the aisle to take ownership of the Venezuela problem and fix it with an American-imposed solution must be tamped down in favour of the prudence and restraint so often thrown by the wayside. Dictation should no longerprescribe policy.

 

All of us would like to see democracy sprout up in Venezuela like the cherry blossoms along the Jefferson Memorial Tidal Basin. Perhaps someday, these hopes will turn into reality. But hope is not a strategy. And neither is regime change—a policy that is likely to cause as many problems as it solves. US policymakers need to understand that it is the Venezuelan people who must be their society’s people of change.

 

There is no way we can impose peace on those countries without getting our own hands dirty. It is almost impossible to force people to be free or to impose sweetness and light on a part of the world that has known nothing but brutality and death.

 

Oil and lucrative contracts for US private defence companies are the primal objectives. The Military Industrial Complex needs to keep its wheels oiled (literally and figuratively) and therefore, the USA invents a new war every few years in order to keep the powerful private defence contractors well paid and to make sure the oil flows.

 

I think most Americans and people all over the world; I know wish American politicians would stop being the world policeman. I mean even George Washington said that America should stay neutral and mind their own business. But we may cite a few examples further: American atomic weapons were first used in combat against Japan during World War II. The Reagan administration sent American troops to overturn a Marxist coup in Grenada. We know the roughshod role played by the US administration in the 1971 Bangladesh-Pakistan war siding with the vicious Pakistani war mongers which resulted in large part as a result of India's support for the independence of Bangladesh. The Ford administration authorised the CIA to launch a large scale covert operation in Angola in an attempt to prevent a Marxist government from coming to power. The Nixon administration expanded the Vietnam War into Cambodia and Laos. Even America’s CIA was allegedly involved in the cruel murder of our nation’s Founding Father Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman along with his most of the family members in 1975.

 

Whereas American administration’s main principle should be that of non-intervention and non-interference in the domestic affairs of other independent and sovereign states across the world. It also should reinforce the idea that the United States would be a good neighbour and engage in reciprocal exchanges with other countries.

 

When all is said and done and the history of this effort is examined, one will see that we who have sought justice and also have sought to repair historic wrongs being done by America for more than seven decades. In repairing this wrong, we use the storehouse of history to feed our arsenal. What we find in that storehouse is simply the truth, and as the saying goes, the truth shall set you free someday.

 

We believe that the United States should have good relations with all countries but they should have not attachment to said countries. They believe that attachment to other countries would draw them into a war that they have no common interest being involved in. Antipathies also lead to more frequent collisions and conflicts which is what the US should not want. Becoming friends with a stronger nation meant the weaker nation would become a satellite for the stronger one. In this case, the US would be the weaker country and therefore, the satellite. Promote trade and a commercial relationship but keep political connection at a minimum.

 

John Adams (October 30, 1735 [a] – July 4, 1826) was an American statesman, attorney, diplomat, writer, and one of the Founding Fathers who served as the second president of the United States from 1797 to 1801. We recall Adams who said that the US greatest contribution to the world was her "honest friendship equal freedom and generous reciprocity" He also says,“America respects the freedom and independence of other countries. He also says America will give moral support and prayers to any friend of the US who has their rights or liberties threatened. He says America should not get involved in other countries' affairs. He was concerned that if the US got involved in these affairs the US would become sort of a dictates to the rest of the world which is bad for America.”

 

It is tragic that American nation has invaded or is invading another sovereign nationunabatedly because “the intelligence and facts are being fixed around the US policy,” as stated in the Downing Street Minutes. It is equally tragic that the US Administration has been unwilling to examine these facts or take action to prevent this scenario from occurring again. Since they appear unwilling to act, it is incumbent on individual American Members of Congress as well as the American public to act to protect their constitutional form of government.

 

However, in the end, these investigations at least will provide a measure of justice and historical rectification reflecting the truth about the times. It is also leavened thatthe United States’ power is inherently not only false, but also dangerous.

 

-The End –

 

The writer is a senior citizen, writes on politics, political and human-centred figures, current and international affairs.

The 'deal of the century': US blessing for Israel's land theft and ghettoisation of the Palestinians

Trump’s Middle East team appear to have begun implementing the plan over the past 18 months even without its publication

White House senior advisor Jared Kushner smiles as he watches Donald Trump talk with Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on 25 March (Reuters)

A report published this week by the Israel Hayom newspaper apparently leaking details of Donald Trump’s "deal of the century" reads like the kind of peace plan that might be put together by an estate agent or car salesman.

Jonathan Cook-9 May 2019 08:42 UTC |

But while the authenticity of the document is unproven and indeed contested, there are serious grounds for believing it paves the direction of any future declaration by the Trump administration.

Greater Israel

Not least, it is a synthesis of most of the Israeli right’s ambitions for the creation of a Greater Israel, with a few sops to the Palestinians – most of them related to partially relieving Israel’s economic strangulation of the Palestinian economy.

This is exactly what Jared Kushner told us the "deal of the century" would look like in his preview last month. 

Also significant is the outlet that published the leak: Israel Hayom. The Israeli newspaper is owned by Sheldon Adelson, a US casino billionaire who is one of the Republican party’s chief donors and was a major contributor to Trump’s presidential election campaign funds.

Adelson is also a stalwart ally of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. His newspaper has served as little more than a mouthpiece for Netanyahu’s ultra-nationalist governments over the past decade. 

Netanyahu behind leak?

Adelson and Israel Hayom have ready access to key figures in both the US and Israeli administrations. And it has been widely reported that little of significance gets into print there unless it has first been approved by Netanyahu or its overseas owner.

The newspaper contested the authenticity and credibility of the document, that spread across social media platforms, even suggesting "it is quite possible the document is fake" and that the Israeli foriegn ministry was looking into it.

The White House had already indicated that, after long delays, it intended to finally unveil the "deal of the century" next month, after the holy Muslim month of Ramadan finishes. 

The leaked plan is a synthesis of most of the Israeli right’s ambitions for a Greater Israel

An unnamed White House official told the paper the leak was “speculative” and “inaccurate” – the kind of lacklustre denial that might equally mean the report is, in fact, largely accurate.

If the document is genuine, Netanyahu looks to be the most likely culprit behind the leak. He has overseen the foreign ministry for years and Israel Hayom is widely referred to by Israelis as "Bibiton", or Bibi’s newspaper, employing the prime minister’s nickname. 

Testing the waters

The alleged document, as published in Israel Hayom, would be catastrophically bad for the Palestinians. Assuming Netanyahu approved the document’s leaking, his motives might not be too difficult to discern. 

On one view, leaking it might be an effective way for Netanyahu and the Trump administration to test the waters, to fly a trial balloon to see whether they dare publish the document as it is, or need to make modifications.

But another possibility is that Netanyahu may have concluded that there could be an unwelcome price in publicly achieving most of what he is already gaining by stealth – a price he may prefer to avoid for the time being.

The Trump administration appears to be ready to give its blessing to a Greater Israel comprising 88 per cent of the land stolen from Palestinians over seven decades

Is the leak designed to foment pre-emptive opposition to the plan, both from within Israel and from the Palestinians and the Arab world, in the hope of stymieing its release? 

The hope may be that the leak, and the reaction it elicits, forces Trump’s Middle East team to postpone yet again the plan’s publication, or even foils its release entirely. 

Nonetheless, whether or not the “deal of the century” is unveiled soon, the leaked document – if true – offers a plausible glimpse into the Trump administration’s thinking. 

Given that Trump’s Middle East team appear to have begun implementing the plan over the past 18 months even without its publication – from moving the US embassy to Jerusalem to the recognition of Israel’s illegal annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights – the leak helps to shed light on how a US-Israeli "resolution" of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is likely to unfold. 

Annexing the West Bank

The proposed Palestinian entity would be named "New Palestine” – apparently taking a page out of the playbook of Tony Blair, a Britain’s former prime minister who became the international community’s Middle East envoy from 2007 to 2015. 

Back in the 1990s, Blair filleted his own political party, Labour, of its socialist heritage and then rebranded the resulting corporation-friendly party, a pale shadow of its former self, as “New Labour". 

The name “New Palestine” helpfully obscures the fact that this demilitarised entity would lack the features and powers normally associated with a state. According to the leak, New Palestine would exist on only a tiny fraction of historic Palestine.

All illegal settlements in the West Bank would be annexed to Israel – satisfying a pledge Netanyahu made shortly before last month’s general election. If the territory annexed includes most of Area C, the 62 per cent of the West Bank Israel was given temporary control over under the Oslo accords, and which the Israeli right urgently wants to annex, that would leave New Palestine nominally in charge of about 12 percent of historic Palestine. 

Or put another way, the Trump administration appears to be ready to give its blessing to a Greater Israel comprising 88 per cent of the land stolen from Palestinians over the past seven decades. 

'New Palestine'

But it is far worse than that. New Palestine would exist as a series of discrete cantons, or Bantustans, surrounded by a sea of Israeli settlements – now to be declared part of Israel. The entity would be chopped and diced in a way that is true of no other state in the world. 

It is hard to imagine how 'New Palestine' would fundamentally change the current, dismal reality for Palestinians

New Palestine would have no army, just a lightly armed police force. It would be able to act only as a series of disconnected municipalities.

In fact, it is hard to imagine how "New Palestine" would fundamentally change the current, dismal reality for Palestinians. They would be able to move between these cantons only using lengthy detours, bypass roads and tunnels. Much like now. 

Glorified municipalities

The only silver lining offered in the alleged document is a proposed bribe from the US, Europe, other developed states, though mostly financed by the oil-rich Gulf states, to salve their consciences for defrauding the Palestinians of their land and sovereignty. 

A Palestinian youth was arrested by Israeli police in Qabatiya on 4 February, 2016 (AFP)

These states will provide $30bn over five years to help New Palestine set up and run its glorified municipalities. If that sounds like a lot of money, remember it is$8bn less than the decade-long aid the US is currently giving Israel to buy arms and fighter jets. 

What happens to New Palestine after that five-year period is unclear in the document. But given that the 12 per cent of historic Palestine awarded to the Palestinians is the region’s most resource-poor territory – stripped by Israel of water sources, economic coherence, and key exploitable resources like the West Bank’s quarries – it is hard not to see the entity sinking rather swimming after the initial influx of money dries up. 

Even if the international community agrees to stump up more money, New Palestine would be entirely aid dependent in perpetuity.

Drunk with power: How Trump is destroying the Middle East

Read More »

The US and others would be able to turn on and off the spigot based on the Palestinians’ "good behaviour" – just as occurs now. Palestinians would live permanently in fear of the repercussions for criticising their prison warders.

In keeping with his vow to make Mexico pay for the wall to be built along the southern US border, Trump apparently wants the Palestinian entity to pay Israel to provide it with military security. In other words, much of that $30bn in aid to the Palestinians would probably end up in the Israeli military’s pockets.

Interestingly, the alleged report argues that oil-producing states, not the Palestinians, would be the "main beneficiaries" of the agreement. This hints at how the Trump deal is being sold to the Gulf states: as an opportunity for them to fully embrace Israel, its technology and military prowess, so that the Middle East can follow in the footsteps of Asia’s "tiger economies". 

Ethnic cleansing in Jerusalem

Jerusalem is described as a "shared capital", but the small print reads rather differently. Jerusalem would not be divided into a Palestinian east and an Israeli west, as most had envisaged. Instead, the city will be run by a unified Israeli-run municipality. Just as happens now.

The only meaningful concession to the Palestinians would be that Israelis would not be allowed to buy Palestinian homes, preventing – in theory, at least – a further takeover of East Jerusalem by Jewish settlers. 

But given that in return Palestinians would not be allowed to buy Israeli homes, and that the Palestinian population in East Jerusalem already suffers massive housing shortages and that an Israeli municipality would have the power to decide where homes are built and for whom, it is easy to imagine that the current situation – of Israel exploiting planning controls to drive Palestinians out of Jerusalem – would simply continue.

A view of the Dome of the Rock, Al-Aqsa mosque compound (AFP)

Also, given that Palestinians in Jerusalem would be citizens of New Palestine, not Israel, those unable to find a home in Israeli-ruled Jerusalem would have no choice but to emigrate into the West Bank. That would be exactly the same form of bureaucratic ethnic cleansing that Palestinians in Jerusalem experience now. 

Gaza open to Sinai

Echoing recent comments from Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and Middle East adviser, the plan’s benefits for Palestinians all relate to potential economic dividends, not political ones. 

Palestinians will be allowed to labour in Israel, as was the norm before Oslo – and presumably, as before, only in the most poorly paid and precarious jobs, on building sites and agricultural land. 

A land corridor, doubtlessly overseen by Israeli military contractors the Palestinians must pay for, is supposed to connect Gaza to the West Bank. Confirming earlier reports of the Trump administration’s plans, Gaza would be opened up to the world, and an industrial zone and airport created in the neighbouring territory of Sinai.

 The land – its extent to be decided in negotiations – would be leased from Egypt. 

Helpfully for Israel, as Middle East Eye has previously pointed out, such a move risks gradually encouraging Palestinians to view Sinai as the centre of their livesrather than Gaza – another way to slowly ethnically cleanse them. 

Meanwhile, the West Bank would be connected to Jordan by two border crossings – probably via land corridors through the Jordan Valley, which itself is to be annexed to Israel. Again, with Palestinians squeezed into disconnected cantons surrounded by Israeli territory, the assumption must be that over time many would seek a new life in Jordan. 

Palestinian political prisoners would be released from Israeli jails to the authority of New Palestine over three years. But the plan says nothing about a right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees – descended from those who were expelled from their homes in the 1948 and 1967 wars. 

Gun to their heads

Don Corleone-style, the Trump administrations appears ready to hold a gun to the head of the Palestinian leaderships to force them to sign up to the deal. 

The US, the leaked report states, would cut off all money transfers to the Palestinians if they dissent, in an attempt to batter them into submission. 

The alleged plan would demand that Hamas and Islamic Jihad disarm, handing their weapons over to Egypt. Should they reject the deal, the report says the US would authorise Israel to "personally harm" the leadership – through extrajudicial assassinations that have long been a mainstay of Israeli policy towards the two groups.

Pro-Palestine demonstrators march down a street in central London in 2017 (MEE/Areeb Ullah

Rather less credibly, the alleged document suggests that the White House is prepared to get tough with Israel too, cutting off US aid if Israel fails to abide by the terms of the agreement.

Given that Israel has regularly broken the Oslo accords – and international law – without paying any serious penalty for doing so, it is easy to imagine that in practice the US would find work-arounds to ensure Israel was not harmed for any violations of the deal. 

US imprimatur

The alleged document has all the hallmarks of being the Trump plan, or at least a recent draft of it, because it sets out in black and white the reality Israel has been crafting for Palestinians over the past two decades.

It simply gives Israel’s mass theft of land and cantonisation of the Palestinians an official US imprimatur. 

Cliches, lies and double standards: Jared Kushner's twisted views on Palestine

Read More »

So, if it offers the Israeli right most of what it wants, what interest would Israel Hayom – Netanyahu’s mouthpiece – have in jeopardising its success by leaking it? 

A couple of reasons suggest themselves.

Israel is already achieving all these goals – stealing land, annexing the settlements, cementing its exclusive control over Jerusalem, putting pressure on the Palestinians to move off their land and into neighbouring states – without formally declaring that this is its game plan. 

It has been making great progress in all its aims without having to admit publicly that statehood for the Palestinians is an illusion. For Netanyahu, the question must be why go public with Israel’s over-arching vision when it can be achieved by stealth. 

Fearful of backlash

But even worse for Israel, once the Palestinians and the watching world understand that the current, catastrophic reality for Palestinians is as good as it is going to get, there is likely to be a backlash. 

The Palestinian Authority could collapse, the Palestinian populace launch a new uprising, the so-called "Arab street" may be far less accepting of the plan than their rulers or Trump might hope, and solidarity activists in the West, including the boycott movement, would get a massive shot in the arm for their cause. 

Equally, it would be impossible for Israel’s apologists to continue denying that Israel is carrying out what the late Israeli academic Baruch Kimmerling called "politicide" – the destruction of the Palestinians’ future, their right to self-determination and their intergrity as a single people.

If this is Trump’s version of Middle East peace, he is playing a game of Russian roulette – and Netanyahu may be reluctant to let him pull the trigger.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

India's disparate opposition senses a growing chance to topple Modi

FILE PHOTO: N Chandrababu Naidu, Chief Minister of India's southern state of Andhra Pradesh, speaks during a sit-in protest in Kolkata, India, February 5, 2019. REUTERS/Rupak De Chowdhuri/File Photo

Krishna N. Das-MAY 9, 2019

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India’s disparate opposition parties are aiming to firm up an alliance as they sense a chance of unseating Prime Minister Narendra Modi as a staggered general election draws to a close.

The seven-phase election, the world’s biggest democratic exercise, began on April 11 and winds up on May 19. Votes will be counted and the result announced on May 23.

Modi’s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) went into the election as front-runner, buoyed by his image as tough and decisive after he ordered a military strike on Pakistan over a militant bomb attack in Indian-controlled Kashmir.

But his opponents have maintained their focus on farm distress and unemployment, issues that helped the main opposition Congress party defeat the BJP in state assembly elections in three rural states late last year.

Now the opposition believes the tide is turning.

“We’ve all collectively recognised the reality that the BJP is losing significant votes, therefore we are mutually exploring the formation of a cohesive and durable government that will fulfil the aspirations of India,” Congress spokesman Sanjay Jha said.

He said the negotiations among opposition parties to work out a “viable alternative” to Modi’s government would be finalised before the May 23 result.

Taking the lead in preparations to take power is N. Chandrababu Naidu, the chief minister of the southern state of Andhra Pradesh, and formerly a BJP ally, according to his regional Telugu Desam Party (TDP).

Naidu has been in touch with leaders of most opposition parties, meeting some in person, TDP officials said.

Modi and other BJP leaders brush off the opposition threat.

BJP President Amit Shah goaded the opposition on Thursday to name its prime ministerial candidate, amid criticism of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, the scion of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty that has dominated India’s politics for much of its history since independence from Britain in 1947.

Congress’s Jha, asked if Gandhi would be candidate for prime minister, said there was “no talent deficit” in the opposition.

‘MANY CHOICES’

Congress was criticised for failing to strike an election alliance with many anti-Modi regional parties, some of them caste-based and run by politicians with much more experience than Gandhi.

They include Mamata Banerjee, the chief minister of West Bengal state, and Mayawati, a former chief minister of Uttar Pradesh state.

Naidu has been negotiating with both of them as well as the chief of the Biju Janata Dal (BJD), based in the eastern state of Odisha.

Slideshow (4 Images)

Political strategists have said that the BJD, the fifth largest party in the 545-seat lower house of parliament, could emerge as kingmaker.

The BJD has also been wooed by Modi, according to two sources with knowledge of the matter, but the party said it would only make a decision after the results are out.

TDP spokesman Lanka Dinakar said he was confident the BJD would join with the opposition.
“We have many choices to replace Modi,” he said.

In some good news for Gandhi, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by a BJP member seeking an investigation of suspicion he holds British citizenship.

Holding dual nationality is against the law and the government last month asked Gandhi to respond to a separate complaint on the issue filed by a BJP lawmaker.

Congress has said Gandhi is an Indian citizen by birth and that he had never held a passport of any other country.

A three-judge panel dismissed the petition on Thursday saying it had no merit.

“It just goes to show that this government’s campaign of lies will never work in the face of truth,”
Congress said in a message on Twitter after the ruling.

South Africa election: early results point to reduced ANC majority

Party expected to retain power with 56% of vote, its lowest share in democratic era

Vote counting begins at a primary school in Durban. Photograph: Rajesh Jantilal/AFP/Getty Images

Jason Burke-Africa correspondent-Thu 9 May 2019 13.56 BST

Early results in South Africa’s general election suggest the ruling African National Congress party (ANC) is heading for a historic low but with enough votes to retain power.

With about half the votes counted, the ANC was on almost 57%, enough for a majority but a sign President Cyril Ramaphosa has failed to slow the accelerating decline in the party’s popularity 25 years after the country’s first free elections ushered in a new democratic era.

The result, if confirmed by the final count, would be a significant blow to Ramaphosa, who took power last year after ousting his predecessor, Jacob Zuma, after a series of corruption scandals.
The party’s share of the vote has not fallen below 60% in national elections since the end of the apartheid regime in 1994.

Ramaphosa, 66, had called on voters to back his efforts to root out graft and incompetence within the ANC, and push through reforms to boost South Africa’s flagging economy.


Many South Africans have been alienated by the corruption scandals and the ANC’s continuing failure to deal with collapsing public services, soaring unemployment and high levels of violent crime. There is also rising anger at the party’s failure to hold its officials to account after graft investigations.

The ANC won 62% of the vote in 2014’s parliamentary election, down from 2009 and far short of its best result, 69% in 2004 under Thabo Mbeki. The party lost further ground in municipal elections in 2016, ceding control of key cities to the Democratic Alliance (DA).

Polls predicted the ANC would win between 55% and 62% of the vote in this election. The centre-right DA party looks likely to exceed expectations with 23%, according to the current results. The far-left Economic Freedom Fighters party (EFF) seems to have significantly underperformed, with about 9% of the vote.

So far, returns indicate a turnout of about 65%, which experts say is relatively low. Poor weather across much of South Africa may be to blame.

If confirmed by later results, the high scores mark progress for the DA, which appointed its first black leader, Mmusi Maimane, in 2015.

The party made headlines with big victories in local elections in Pretoria and Johannesburg a year later and could be on track to win control in more of South Africa’s nine provinces. The party already controls Western Cape.

“Fear says to us: let’s stick with what we know; hope says: let’s bring change,” Maimane said after casting his ballot in the township of Soweto.

Though the ANC will have a majority in parliament and Ramaphosa can expect the party to vote to confirm him in office with a five-year mandate, a better result would have helped the former labour activist turned tycoon in ongoing factional fighting within the party. His supporters have said the ANC faces a “moral crisis”.

Dirk Kotzé, a professor at the University of South Africa’s political science department, said: “The higher the percentage for the ANC, the more it will give [Ramaphosa] bargaining power.”
A poor score will also make it hard for Ramaphosa to resist pressure for more radical measures to redistribute wealth within South Africa, one of the world’s most unequal countries.


 Voters queue to cast their ballots before polls closed outside a polling station in Alexandra township in Johannesburg on Wednesday. Photograph: Mike Hutchings/Reuters

A big issue has been the implementation of a 2017 ANC pledge to redistribute prime agricultural land, currently disproportionately owned by white people, who constitute less than 10% of the population. Ramaphosa has vowed to accelerate the redistribution of land to the black majority, endorsing an opposition bill to amend the constitution to make expropriation without compensation easier.

At a campaign event last week in Johannesburg, the president said there would be a step-change in the pace of reform and the economy was ready for liftoff.

But the ANC’s list of parliamentary candidates contains many hardliners who are opposed to Ramaphosa’s reformist agenda and could frustrate his initiatives in parliament.

Australian, Canadian firms pull out of Israeli settler railway

The Jerusalem light rail which links Israel’s illegal West Bank colonies is a symbol of oppression to Palestinians.

Ali Abunimah- 8 May 2019

The Electronic Intifada can exclusively reveal that Canadian engineering giant Bombardier has pulled out of a bid to expand and operate an Israeli tramway linking settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Bombardier is one of several global firms – two others being Australia’s Macquarie and Germany’s Siemens – to drop out of the tender to build the next phase of the Jerusalem light rail.

The light rail system links settlements to each other and to Jerusalem, helping to entrench and facilitate Israel’s colonial expansion in the occupied territory – a war crime.

The tramway is a symbol of oppression for Palestinians.

Last month Israeli business publication Globes reported that investment fund Macquarie was withdrawing its support from the bidding consortium that includes Bombardier and Austrian company Wiener Linien.

According to Globes, the consortium was “looking for an investment fund to replace Australian fund Macquarie.”

However, a spokesperson for Macquarie confirmed to The Electronic Intifada on Wednesday that not only had the Australian financier withdrawn, but the entire consortium spearheaded by Bombardier had pulled out altogether.

A request for comment has been sent to Bombardier.

Last year, FIDH, a prominent international human rights organization, said it had received a commitment from the French public firm Systra that it was pulling out of the light rail tender.

FIDH noted at the time that the railway is “a tool of Israel’s settlement policy and of its annexation of Jerusalem, in complete violation of international law.”

After sustained pressure from human rights campaigners, the French infrastructure multinational Veolia in 2015 sold its stake in CityPass, the consortium that operates the existing light rail line.

German firm withdraws

Now CityPass itself is following Veolia to the exit.

The CityPass consortium, which includes Germany’s Siemens, notified the Israeli government that it is pulling out of the tender to expand and run the Jerusalem light rail’s existing Red Line and to build and operate the new Green Line.

The Red line will be extended to penetrate deeper into the occupied West Bank, connecting the settlements of Pisgat Zeev and Neve Yaakov, which are part of the ring of colonies Israel is building to isolate Palestinians in Jerusalem from those in the rest of the occupied West Bank.

The Green Line will run from Mount Scopus in occupied East Jerusalem to the settlement of Gilo, southwest of Jerusalem.

The Times of Israel made clear that the consortium’s exit was related to risks stemming from Israel’s prolonged military occupation.

According to the Israeli publication, CityPass “pointed to a long string of security incidents, including Palestinian terror attacks and rock-throwing, as well as riots and protests in ultra-Orthodox areas, that damaged and delayed trains.”

The company said that its contract “did not adequately protect it from losses incurred during such events,” according to The Times of Israel.

“BDS pressure works”

Palestinian campaigners see the latest withdrawals as victories for their efforts to hold companies complicit in Israel’s occupation and colonization accountable.

Mahmoud Nawajaa, general coordinator of the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee (BNC), told The Electronic Intifada, “The withdrawals from Israel’s illegal Jerusalem light rail project of a consortium including the Canadian company Bombardier, and of the CityPass consortium including Siemens, show again that BDS as a form of popular pressure works.”

But companies that pull out are also merely complying with their basic human rights obligations.

There is a growing legal and human rights consensus that doing business with Israel’s settlements involves unavoidable complicity in major human rights abuses, including war crimes, and that such trade should be banned.

Amnesty International

✔@amnesty

We are calling on states to ban settlement goods and prevent companies from operating in #Israel's settlements. http://amn.st/60148luSG 

276

12:39 PM - Jun 7, 2017

View image on Twitter

Human Rights Watch

✔@hrw

Businesses facilitate growth of Israeli settlements & their abuses. Time to stop. http://bit.ly/1Jeiqaf 

116

1:11 AM - Jan 19, 2016

Corporate complicity

While the exits of Macquarie, Bombardier and Siemens will be welcome news to those campaigning for Palestinian rights, three consortiums are still bidding on the project and they include several global firms apparently still willing to profit from Israel’s crimes.

One consortium, according to Globes, joins together the Israeli infrastructure company Electra with France-based train manufacturer Alstom, and Moventia, the firm that runs public transport in Barcelona.

The second consortium includes Spanish train maker CAF, whose official workers council has voted againstparticipation in the project. But according to Globes, that consortium is still bidding.

And the third consortium still seeking to build the railway includes settlement-builder Shikun & Binui, Chinese train company CRRC and the French investment fund Meridiam.

Meridiam was created with the financial backing of French bank Crédit Agricole.

A fourth consortium includes two Greek firms, infrastructure company GEK Terna, and state-owned Athens metro operator STASY.

But in a potentially worrying development from Israel’s perspective, Globes notes that the “intentions” of the Greek-led consortium are “unclear.”

The Greek government has given its backing to the bid, but lawmakers from Greece’s nominally left-wing ruling party Syriza, and trade unions, have expressed strong opposition to any Greek involvement in the settler railway.

Despite the ongoing complicity, campaigners hope that the latest rush for the exit won’t be the last.

“Like Veolia earlier, more and more corporations realize that investing in and enabling Israel’s violations of international law and human rights is not only illegal and immoral, but is bad for business,” the BNC’s Nawajaa said.

“A year after the US embassy move to Jerusalem, these companies’ withdrawals show that human rights can still trump US support for Israeli apartheid. Pressure must continue on all companies involved in or considering bids for tenders until they all have withdrawn from this illegal light rail project.”