Soil frost is a nearly universal process in the Arctic. In a recent dissertation by doctoral student Marina Becher at Umeå University, it is shown that the frequency and extent of soil frost is important for the release of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from arctic soil.

Soil in the Arctic has for thousands of years gathered large quantities of decomposed organic matter due to the decomposition being slow at the low temperatures in the region. As temperatures in the Arctic are increasing, there is a growing concern that the organic matter stored in the ground will be decomposed and released as carbon dioxide. Such a process would contribute to the ongoing increase in this greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

So far, predictions of future carbon dioxide emission from arctic soil have not taken into account how soil frost processes affect greenhouse gas emissions. Marina Becher at the Department of Ecology and Environmental Science shows in her dissertation that temperature is not the only important factor for the amount of greenhouse gas being released from the soil. She provides results that imply that the release of carbon dioxide will also be affected by the changes in soil frost processes.

An intriguing result of Becher’s studies is that soil affected by severer soil frost seems to be acting as a significant source of carbon dioxide in the Swedish mountains.

“I measured the fluxes of carbon dioxide for one year in fifteen various sites in the mountainous area of Abisko in northern Sweden. I found that all these locations released more carbon dioxide than what could be taken up and stored in local plants,” said Marina Becher.

The fact that soil exposed to severe soil frost processes is a source for carbon dioxide deviates from the common notion that arctic soil is still binding more carbon dioxide than it releases. This is a result that shows that soils subjected to severe soil frost may behave differently than soil less affected by this process. Marina Becher shows in her dissertation dissertation that soil frost affects both the plant species composition and how effective plants absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. Heavy frost heave makes it difficult for plants to photosynthesise as their roots may break when the ground moves in winter. Soil frost processes also control where in the soil organic matter ends up, which is of great importance to the speed of decomposition.

“If soil frost processes cause an upward transport of old plant matter to the surface by frost, it can increase the release of carbon dioxide,” said Marina Becher.

Marina Becher’s studies indicate that old organic matter that was buried in the little ice-age (a period of cold climate that ended about 100 years ago), may have been transported to the soil surface during the last decades and decomposition of this carbon could be an explanation for the net release of carbon dioxide from the soil.

In order to study how soil frost processes affect carbon storage in the soil, Marina Becher has used and studied the patterned ground phenomena caused by soil frost, called non-sorted circles. These are circle-like features of soil with limited vegetation that are surrounded by vegetation. These features form above the tree line in mountainous regions when the soil moves due to severe soil frost processes.

“Before I started my doctoral studies, I had never taken any notice of these circles on my mountain hikes. Now when I look at old photos, I see that we have often pitched our tents on them as the ground tends to be more flat there. Nowadays, I see these features everywhere,” said Marina Becher.

The studies performed by Marina Becher clearly show how important it is to understand how soil frost processes are affected by a changing climate if humans want to be able to predict the future release of greenhouse gas from the Arctic.

The influential Cardinal Oscar Maradiaga has acknowledged the presence of a “gay lobby” in the Vatican. In a new interview, he says that Pope Francis has adopted a gradual approach to address it – and that Catholic teaching won’t change.

The Honduran newspaper El Heraldo asked the cardinal whether there actually was an attempted or successful “infiltration of the gay community in the Vatican.”

Cardinal Maradiaga responded: “Not only that, also the Pope said: there was even a ‘lobby’ in this sense.”

“Little by little the Pope is trying to purify it,” he continued. “One can understand them, and there is pastoral legislation to attend to them, but what is wrong cannot be truth.”

Cardinal Maradiaga is the Archbishop of Tegucigalpa, Honduras and the coordinator of the Council of Cardinals who advise Pope Francis on the reform of the Curia.

HIs interview, published Jan. 12, also touched on some perceptions about Pope Francis.

The newspaper said some people have interpreted Pope Francis’ other remarks to think there was a possibility the Church would support same-sex marriage.

The cardinal rejected this possibility.

“No, we must understand that there are things that can be reformed and others cannot,” he said. “The natural law cannot be reformed. We can see how God has designed the human body, the body of the man and the body of a woman to complement each other and transmit life. The contrary is not the plan of creation. There are things that cannot be changed.”

A previous report about the Pope working to counter the “gay lobby” was widely read, but its accuracy was uncertain.

In June 2013 the left-leaning Chilean Catholic website “Reflexión y liberación” claimed that Pope Francis had told a meeting of the Latin American Confederation of Men and Women Religious that there is a “gay lobby” in the Church and “we have to see what we can do (about it).”

However, the Latin American Confederation of Men and Women said that this report rested on a summary account that relied on the memory of participants, not a recording. This summary was intended for meeting participants and was not intended for publication. The confederation said the reported assertion “cannot be attributed with certainty to the Holy Father.”

Pope Francis in a July 28, 2013 in-flight interview returning to Italy from Brazil briefly discussed this alleged lobby in the context of penitence, confession and God’s forgiveness.

“So much is written about the gay lobby. I have yet to find anyone who can give me a Vatican identity card with ‘gay’ [written on it]. They say they are there,” the Pope said.

He said that all lobbies are bad and “the gravest problem for me.” Citing the Catechism’s teaching against marginalizing homosexual persons, he said, “If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, well who am I to judge them?”

Cardinal Maradiaga also spoke to El Heraldo about reform and changes to the Church.

“We should not expect there will be major reforms in the doctrine of the Church,” he said. “The reform is the organization of the Curia.”

He acknowledged resistance to Curia reform, saying there are people who “resist any changes” precisely because “they do not know the life of the Church.”

The Church is “not merely a human institution,” he explained. Rather, it is “humane-divine” and “natural and supernatural.” This means “there are things that do not really depend on what is human.”

The cardinal’s remarks on a “gay lobby” follow years of increasingly prominent agitation for doctrinal change from non-Catholics and some Catholics.

As CNA has reported previously, LGBT activists have backed conferences and advocacy events to counter the narrative of the Catholic Church, especially during its synods on the family. These actions include the formation of a coalition called the Global Network of Rainbow Catholics and an advocacy campaign that targeted synod attendees in hopes of countering the influence of bishops from West Africa.

The Thai government should immediately act to end enforced disappearances in Thailand, Human Rights Watch said today in a letter to Prime Minister Gen. Prayut Chan-ocha. The government should make enforced disappearance a criminal offense and take serious steps to bring those responsible for this human rights violation to justice.

On December 29, 2015, the Supreme Court acquitted five police officers charged in the March 2004 disappearance of a prominent human rights lawyer, Somchai Neelapaijit, despite the admission by then-Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra that the police were responsible and substantial evidence implicating specific police officials.

“The dozens of unresolved disappearance cases in Thailand demand an immediate government response to investigate and bring those responsible to justice,” said Brad Adams, Asia director. “Thai authorities should end the excuses and cover ups that have allowed impunity to flourish and have condemned families of the missing to years of agony and uncertainty.”

Prayut should fulfill pledges he made at the United Nations General Assembly to protect human rights and for the government to urgently ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.

Enforced disappearance is defined under international law as the arrest or detention of a person by state officials or their agents followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty, or to reveal the person’s fate or whereabouts.

Since 1980, the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance has recorded 82 cases of enforced disappearance in Thailand. Somchai’s case is the only enforced disappearance case that has been brought to court. The actual number of cases in Thailand is underreported because some families of victims and witnesses keep silent due to fears of reprisal and the government’s lack of an effective witness protection system.

Because Thailand’s penal code does not recognize enforced disappearance as a criminal offense, a major shortcoming that goes against international rights standards, prosecutors only filed robbery and coercion charges against the five officers in Somchai’s case. Over the 11 years since his disappearance, Thai authorities have failed to explain his fate or whereabouts. The acquittal was due in part to shoddy police work in investigating the crime and collecting evidence. The court also ruled that Somchai’s family could not act as a co-plaintiff because there was no concrete evidence that he was dead or incapable of bringing the case by himself.

“This verdict sets a bad precedent that places the burden of proving enforced disappearance on the disappeared person himself – which is impossible,” Adams said. “The current system entrenches impunity for government officials involved in disappearances.”

The previous government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra signed the enforced disappearance convention in January 2012, but since then Thailand has not ratified the treaty or changed the penal code to make enforced disappearance a criminal offense.

Human Rights Watch also raised concerns about the use of secret military detention by Thai authorities both under section 44 of the 2014 interim constitution against dissenters and suspects in national security cases and under the 1914 Martial Law Act against insurgent suspects in the southern border provinces.

“The Thai government should make a 180 degree turn in its policy by recognizing that secret detention and enforced disappearance fundamentally undermine the rule of law and destroy people’s trust in their government,” Adams said. “The failure to pursue and end enforced disappearance cases runs counter to General Prayut’s many pledges to respect human rights.”

Migration commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos warned MEPs the refugee crisis was “getting worse” during a meeting organised by the civil liberties committee on 14 January. He said the EU’s unity was at stake amid an increase of “populism and nationalism”. The commissioner also called on member states to deliver on their own promises and show solidarity to each other: “If Schengen collapses, it will be the beginning of the end of the European project,” Avramopoulos said.

Avramopoulos, who is responsible at the Commission for migration and home affairs, discussed the effectiveness of measures to tackle the refugee crisis so far at the meeting of Parliament’s civil liberties committee presided by UK S&D member Claude Moraes.

Relocation scheme

Last September MEPs backed two emergency proposals to relocate 160,000 asylum seekers from EU countries hit hardest by the arrivals of new migrants. However, so far only 272 people have been relocated to other member states. “All member states have to play the game,” said Avramopoulos, stressing that EU countries should not become prisoners of domestic political agendas.

MEPs also referred to the scheme’s lack of success so far. Cornelia Ernst, a German member of the GUE/NGL group, said: “How on earth can we implement anything if member states keep saying no, no, no.”

Need to review existing rules on asylum applications

Existing EU rules concerning refugees are based on the Dublin regulations, which stipulates that asylum demands should be dealt with by the first EU country the applicant entered. During the debate, MEPs and the commissioner generally agreed on the need to revise the legislation. The European Commission will propose new measures in March.

Timothy Kirkhope, a UK member of the ECR group, said: “We do not need gestures dressed up as policies. I hope the Dublin review will be a solid review.”

Common list of safe countries

Parliament is currently working on proposals for a permanent relocation mechanism as well as a common list of safe countries of origin. If migrants come from a country on the list, then their request for asylum would be less likely to be approved. Swedish EPP MEP Anna Maria Corazza Bildt said, “We need to distinguish between those with right to international protection and those without.”

The need to better protect the EU’s external borders was another issue that was discussed in detail during the meeting. Nathalie Griesbeck, a French member of the ALDE group, said the EU’s external borders needed “to be properly policed to ensure Schengen doesn’t collapse”.

The Commission has already proposed to strengthen EU border agency Frontex in order to turn it into a body that would even be able to act in some cases without the approval of the country concerned. The Parliament has already welcomed these plans. These proposals would also require countries outside the EU to collaborate.

However, commissioner Avramopoulos warned, “If third countries are not engaged, there is no hope.”

Birgit Sippel, a German member of the S&D group, wondered if this cooperation was aimed at handling the refugee situation or just “to keep them there”. Green German MEP Ska Keller added that according to reports Turkey was already “pushing refugees back to Syria” as a direct consequence of its agreement with the EU.

Hot spots

Reception centers, also known as hotspots, are being set up in Greece and Italy to help distinguish between refugees, economic migrants and terrorists seeking to slip into Europe. The centers receive and register those who made the crossing through measures such as fingerprinting, establishing adequate reception and promptly selecting and relocating asylum applicants.

However, it is still early days for these centers. Laura Ferrara, an Italian member of the EFDD group said, “In Italy the hotspots are not working, the identification process is too slow.” She added that people whose asylum requests were rejected had neither been helped nor accompanied back to the border. Commissioner Avramopoulos said the hotspots were indeed a work in progress that he himself was following, adding: “All member states have the responsibility to welcome refugees in a dignified manner.”

Tragedies

MEPs also brought up recent tragedies such as the terrorist attacks in Paris and Istanbul and the events surrounding the New Year celebrations in Cologne and elsewhere. Avramopoulos insisted on the need to avoid any “amalgamation” of migrants and terrorists.

Vicky Maeijer, a Dutch member of the EFN group, called EU policies “very dangerous”, adding: “We need to close the border.”

Upcoming proposals

Commissioner Avramopoulos said the Commission was working on a long list of middle and long-term measures in order to create a more sustainable migration system for the future. He said this would include substantial financial to help those who have been most affected, a revision of the blue card system and a new system for resettling asylum seekers.

In March the Commission will release its smart borders proposal.

By Michael Lelyveld

China has promised big steps to cut pollution from coal-fired power plants, but recent measures have left the moves’ progress in doubt.

On Dec. 2, the State Council, or cabinet, announced ambitious plans to upgrade coal-fired generators and reduce pollutants by 60 percent before 2020.

The changes would save some 100 million tons of raw coal and 180 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, the official Xinhua news agency said.

The government also promised to close all plants that fail to meet energy-saving standards by 2020.

The pledges followed new guidelines for reforming the electricity market and opening distribution networks to competition that were issued by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) planning agency on Nov. 30.

The reforms would develop electricity trading platforms and encourage industrial users to negotiate rates directly with producers, curbing the monopoly of the State Grid.

All the new power sector policies are meant to be consistent with China’s climate pledge to reach a peak in carbon emissions by 2030 and government promises to reduce urban smog.

Questions raised

But details of the plans for boosting coal-fired efficiency and cutting pollution have some curious features, raising questions about how well and how soon they will work.

On Dec. 9, the NDRC said it would pay bonuses in the form of higher rates to plants that meet coal efficiency standards starting Jan. 1, Reuters reported.

Under the plan, existing plants will be paid an extra 0.01 yuan (U.S. 0.15 cents) per kilowatt hour (kWh) for meeting the standards, while new plants would receive half that amount.

The reward reflects the judgment that generators need incentives as well as fines to comply with costly anti-smog requirements, according to Reuters.

Noncompliance has cost power producers 635 million yuan (U.S. $96.3 million) in lost subsidies and fines since new regulations took effect in 2014, the news agency said last month in a separate report.

But on Dec. 23, the State Council announced another rate change starting Jan. 1 that lowered the price paid for coal-fired power “to reduce the burden on enterprises and cut emissions,” Xinhua said.

‘Saved funds’

Ordinarily, reduced prices would be expected to boost electricity use and emissions, but this cut of 0.03 yuan (U.S. 0.45 cents) per kWh primarily affected prices paid to the generators by the State Grid rather than consumer rates.

The “saved funds” would be used partially to lower rates for businesses but also to upgrade power plants and increase renewable energy supplies, the State Council said.

A fund would be established to support laid-off workers in the coal and steel sectors, said the statement, suggesting proceeds from the rate cut might be used for that, as well.

But the net effect for coal-fired power producers is that their prices would be set lower than they were before the series of changes took place, erasing the incentive to upgrade.

Based on the separate rate announcements, the price cut is three to six times more than the compliance bonuses that the government would pay.

Even without the offsetting drop in rates, the bonus incentive may be much too small make a difference in emissions.

For plants already operating, the additional 0.01 yuan per kWh would raise 42 million yuan (U.S. $6.3 million) if all thermal power output in 2014 had been produced at plants meeting the standards, Reuters said.

Combined pressures

Although the policies seem to be at cross-purposes, they may be the result of combined pressures from low coal prices, high pollution, and huge surpluses of generating capacity, said Philip Andrews-Speed, a China energy expert at National University of Singapore.

“Given that all fossil fuel prices are low, they have to lower the on-grid tariff for thermal power, but they then add a very small incentive to be cleaner,” said Andrews-Speed.

“Given that there is a large and growing excess of thermal power capacity, power stations and companies which cannot make money will go bankrupt, in theory, unless they are protected by local governments,” he said.

In theory, the policies would wash out the least efficient and most polluting power plants, but since coal prices are so low and generating overcapacity is so high, the shakeout in the industry could take years to have environmental effects.

Despite the surplus of generating capacity and near-zero growth in power consumption last year, China has continued to build coal-fired power plants at a rapid rate.

As of December, officials granted permits for 155 new coal-fired power projects last year, The New York Times reported.

At the same time, the utilization rate for existing coal-fired plants is at a 37-year low, according to a study released by Greenpeace East Asia in November.

Despite the government’s pledge to shut down all noncompliant plants by 2020, the pace of building suggests that the coal-fired surplus could reach 200 gigawatts (GW) by then, exceeding all the coal-fired capacity in the European Union, Greenpeace East Asia said.

Project lead-times

A major question for China is why it keeps building more coal-fired plants when utilization is so low, profits are so poor, and pollution is so severe.

The answer is a combination of local political pressures and long lead times for projects that may have been planned when demand growth was high, said the Greenpeace study conducted with North China Electric Power University.

The trouble can be traced to a decision in 2013 to transfer power for project approvals to provincial authorities.

“The result of this was that a measure originally intended to simplify bureaucracy and increase efficiency has now become a carte-blanche for local governments to increase GDP (gross domestic product), especially in provinces heavily relied on coal,” the study said.

Greenpeace urged that no more permits for coal-fired projects should be granted during the 13th Five-Year Plan period, running from this year through 2020.

On Dec. 29, a senior energy official suggested that the central government will try to bring the pace of new projects under control.

Nur Bekri, director of the National Energy Administration (NEA), said that “a warning mechanism” would be established for coal-fired power plant construction and production, Xinhua reported.

But the statement appeared to fall short of an outright ban on new generating plants, leaving room for local governments to keep building more.

Saudi Arabia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Adel Al-Jubeir and United States Secretary of State John Kerry have called for a united front against terrorism.

At a joint press conference after their meeting in London, Al-Jubeir condemned the terrorist bombings in Indonesia and Pakistan. Kerry said such terrorist acts would not stop countries from protecting their citizens.

He said his country was determined to eliminate the Islamic State (Daesh) terrorist group, Boko Haram of Nigeria and the youth movement of Somalia peacefully if possible, but force would be used if necessary.

Al-Jubeir also touched on a series of challenges facing the region including Yemen and Syria, and Iran’s interference in the internal affairs of the region. He said the Kingdom was working closely with the United States on these issues.

Al-Jubeir said growing tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran won’t affect the former’s commitment to ending the Syrian war. “Our relationship with Iran is separate from the relationship with everybody else in terms of the Syria cooperation group.” He added: “Our objective is to work through the process that was started in Vienna in order to arrive at a peaceful settlement.”

Kerry said the US supports its ally Saudi Arabia and urged diplomacy to end the dispute between Tehran and Riyadh.

“We want to try to see if there’s a way forward to resolve some of these problems without moving to greater conflict,” he said. “The last thing the region needs is more conflict, and I know the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia agrees with that. But there are simple things they would like to see done that help to prevent that. And our job is to work together in order to try to get there.”

Kerry also said he’s conveyed similar messages to Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

The US Department of State has announced the designation of ISIL-Khorasan (ISIL-K) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The consequences of the FTO designation include a prohibition against knowingly providing, or attempting or conspiring to provide, material support or resources to this organization.

The Department of State said it took this action in consultation with the US Departments of Justice and the Treasury.

ISIL-K announced its formation on January 10, 2015. The group is based in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region and is composed primarily of former members of Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan and the Afghan Taliban. The senior leadership of ISIL-K has pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIL. This pledge was accepted in late January 2015 and since then ISIL-K has carried out suicide bombings, small arms attacks and kidnappings in eastern Afghanistan against civilians and Afghan National Security and Defense Forces, and claimed responsibility for May 2015 attacks on civilians in Karachi, Pakistan.

According to the US State Department, “The imposition of sanctions by the United States against terrorists is an important element of our counterterrorism efforts. Designations of terrorists and terrorist groups expose and isolate individuals and organizations, and result in denial of access to the U.S. financial system. Moreover, designations can assist or complement the law enforcement actions of other U.S. agencies and other governments.”

By Loredana Vuoto

A prominent proposal by GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump would ban Muslim immigrants from entering the U.S. and would monitor mosques in the country.

The idea has garnered no shortage of publicity – or controversy. But religious freedom advocates say such measures could endanger the religious freedom of all faiths.

“Our nation was founded by religious dissenters who fled statist persecution in Europe and ratified a First Amendment that guarantees the free exercise and free speech rights of all persons of faith – including Muslims,” Matthew Kacsmaryk, deputy general counsel at the Liberty Institute, told CNA.

“An indiscriminate ban on all Muslims violates the very ‘first freedom’ principles that inspired dissident Puritans, Quakers, Baptists, Presbyterians, and Roman Catholics to seek refuge in the new world,” he said.

“Having once felt the sting of religious persecution in the United States, American Catholics understand that the majority can do great violence to the constitutional rights of an insular religious minority. Consequently, faithful Catholics should stand athwart any government policy that indiscriminately targets Muslims because they are Muslim.”

Trump’s proposal comes after a string of terrorist attacks, including the Dec. 2, 2015 shooting in San Bernardino, California that left 14 dead and 22 more seriously injured.

The San Bernardino shooters – Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik – opened fire at a holiday party at the Inland Regional Center. They were later killed by police. The married couple pledged allegiance to the Islamic State on social media shortly before the attack.

Farook, a U.S. citizen, and Malik, a Pakistan national, began plotting a terror attack before they were engaged and before Malik moved to the U.S. last year from Saudi Arabia on a K-1 fiancee visa, according to authorities.

According to a 2012 U.S. Religion Census, Islam is the fastest growing religion in America, with numbers of Muslims in the U.S. more than doubling from 2000 to 2010. The Pew Research Center has estimated that the population of U.S. Muslims will more than double again over the next two decades, reaching 6.2 million in 2030.

The U.S. House of Representatives recently approved funding to issue nearly 300,000 visas to immigrants from Muslim countries in 2016.

In light of the terrorist attacks – both abroad and on U.S. soil – Trump suggested banning non-citizen Muslims from entering the United States.

However, the proposal has drawn intense backlash, both from those concerned about its humanitarian effects on those trying to flee violent countries and those concerned with its effects on religious liberty.

“The very idea is absurd,” Thomas Farr, director of the Religious Freedom Project at the Georgetown University Berkley Center, told CNA. “However, I believe that anyone whose profile suggests they are radicalized should be refused entry.”

“Religious freedom and national security overlap,” Farr stressed. “Advancing religious freedom abroad will increase U.S. national security by undermining religious extremism. The Obama administration sometimes gives lip service to that very important connection, but they have utterly failed to do anything about it.”

Supporters of Trump argue that the measure may be necessary for national security. FBI Director James Comey recently warned that there are at least 900 active ongoing investigations of ISIS terrorist plots with suspects in all 50 states.

“Muslims should not be prohibited from entering the United States on a permanent basis but temporarily until the government gets its act together. No foreigner has a constitutional right to come to America,” said Jeffrey Lord, a CNN commentator and author of “What America Needs: The Case for Trump.”

“We need to fix our faulty government system that is allowing terrorists like Tashfeen Malik in,” he told CNA. “People should not go to an office party and then be shot senselessly and die. Trump’s policy simply makes sense and is not anti-immigrant.”

“All the signs were there with Malik and the Fort Hood shooter, but political correctness stood in the way of properly investigating these people,” said Lord, who formerly served as Ronald Reagan’s White House political director. “Now, many innocent Americans are dead.”

Trump’s proposed policy does have legal precedent. After the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese Navy, President Franklin D. Roosevelt passed several executive actions which prevented German, Japanese and Italian citizens from immigrating or traveling to America. The measures also authorized the surveillance of those allowed to remain in the United States.

The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the plenary power of Congress to regulate immigration. In 1973, it ruled in Kleindienst v. Mandel that the U.S. Attorney General has the right to refuse a person entry into the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

In that case, Dr. Ernest Mandel, a citizen of Belgium and a renowned Marxist scholar and journalist, was seeking a visa to speak at conferences and schools in the United States. He was denied entry under immigration law regarding “aliens who write or publish . . . the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship.”

According to the Supreme Court’s decision in Kleindienst v. Mandel, “the power to exclude aliens is ‘inherent in sovereignty, necessary for maintaining normal international relations and defending the country against foreign encroachments and dangers–a power to be exercised exclusively by the political branches of government . . . .’”

Howsoever, Kacsmaryk noted that while “the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the ‘plenary power’ of Congress to regulate immigration, it has never affirmed the categorical exclusion of persons based on religion.”

“Because religion lies at the heart of the First Amendment Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses and is a protected class under several federal statutes, Congress should focus its immigration firepower on non-religious criteria that more closely correlate to terrorism,” he said.

In addition to banning Muslims entry into the United States, Trump is in favor of monitoring and closing down mosques with suspicious activities. There are more than 2,000 mosques in the country, most of which have been built in the last 30 years, according to a survey by Faith Communities Today.

“Nobody wants to say this and nobody wants to shut down religious institutions or anything, but you know, you understand it. A lot of people understand it. We’re going to have no choice,” Trump said in an interview on Fox News’ “Hannity” on Dec. 17.

“This is not about religious freedom, said Lord. “The FBI has investigated the Catholic Church during the pedophile scandal, as well as Protestant evangelicals for money laundering, and Jewish groups for illegal activity.”

“The U.S. government can investigate religious activists if they are breaking the law or there is a threat. In the 1950s, the FBI investigated the Italian mob and monitored Italian Americans,” said Lord. “You go where the problem is. You don’t say the mob is Italian so let’s investigate the Amish. You also don’t ignore a problem for fear of being called anti-immigrant.”

However, religious liberty advocates have warned that the measure could have a chilling effect on religious freedom in the country. They noted that the tables could easily be turned and another religion could find itself the subject of such scrutiny.

“In principle, why not?” said Catholic University of America associate professor of theology Joseph Capizzi. “Once the government determines to screen people by religious affiliation – and not just by any religious affiliation, but one with over 1000 years of belief and practice and a billion or so followers, by what principle could it distinguish that faith from any other?”

“The only thing preventing that policy from identifying Catholics as subject to it is occasional: should the occasion arise because of some confrontation of Catholic doctrine with popular opinion, the policy could turn to Catholics as well,” he continued.

Capizzi told CNA that the proposal to monitor or close mosques “is misguided and a violation of religious freedom.”

“If a mosque is fostering terrorism, one can make an argument for closing it down,” he said. “But as a general policy, it is bad to single out houses of worship of any religion. We cannot monitor or close down Catholic churches simply because a Catholic commits an act of violence.”

“There would have to be a viable threat and a direct connection to a particular religious leader or house of worship in order to act against it. Otherwise, this would violate the free exercise of religion, which our Constitution protects,” Capizzi stressed.

Farr agreed that a justifiable reason must exist to monitor or close down mosques.

“It is a violation of religious freedom to monitor or close down a mosque unless there is probable cause to investigate a crime or proof that a crime is being committed,” Farr said. “I am a Catholic. If I believed a priest in my parish were preaching violence, I would not mind a whit if law enforcement personnel came and listened to his sermons.”

By David W. Murray*

Two recent measures of educational performance, one at the national level (National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NEAP) and one among 11 regional states and the District of Columbia showed not only poor and deteriorating performance for all students, but staggering differences between white students and black students.

At the national level, the NEAP reported that 66 percent of all 8th graders were “not proficient” in reading, rising to 67 percent in math. But for black 8th graders, fully 84 percent were “not proficient” in reading, with 87 percent “not proficient” in math.

And the report on students in the District of Columbia revealed an educational disaster. In 3rd through 8th grade, only 79 percent of whites were “proficient” in English, with 70 percent so for math. For black students, proficiency in either skill fell to 17 percent.

In high school, it got worse. Only 52 percent of whites were proficient in geometry, compared to four percent of blacks. In English, only 20 percent of black students were proficient, compared to 82 percent of whites.

Importantly, the blame falls not on the expectant students. It falls squarely on the institutions—and the adults—entrusted with the task of educating them. (The District spent $17,953 per pupil, outranking all states but Alaska, in the most recent, reported year.) Teaching youth is the most fundamental operation of any culture, upon which acquisition of other capacities will depend. If they can’t read, write, or calculate, we are failing to render self-sufficient in the tools of daily life the coming generation.

We may not have the power to fix all the things that are wrong with public schools. But surely we have the power, and the responsibility, to not make things worse, particularly for those already struggling. And making things worse is just what the District, and now other places in America, are doing, by making marijuana use more normalized and widespread.

According to the latest results from the National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC), marijuana use doubled between the period 2001-2002 and the most recent wave of findings, the years 2012-2013. There was also a near-doubling of “marijuana-related disorders,” such that three-in-ten users now suffer problems.

But an equally troubling finding was what NESARC termed “significant increases across demographic subgroups.” In fact, “Black and Hispanic individuals showed especially notable increases in the prevalence of marijuana use and marijuana use disorders, trends consistent with other studies showing that marijuana use is now more prevalent in black than white individuals.”

These disturbing results for marijuana only add to the bad news, which most affects youth — and perhaps critically affects disadvantaged youth.

No one says that drug use is the single factor “causing” student failure; there are documented institutional and social deficiencies enough for that. But who will not face that marijuana use will most penalize those most at risk? Minority youth are both using more dope and suffering more of the consequences, and the impact hits hardest those without support.

The clear science on adolescent marijuana use and school failure is undeniable. The loss of 8 IQ points from heavy use, the measurable detriment to memory and learning, the risks of depression and psychosis for the vulnerable, the greatly increased risk of school drop-out; these are now well-established associations, and they seem to worsen as marijuana potency skyrockets, while dependency becomes “more severe.”

We can anticipate the objections from legalization advocates. Under the District’s rules, marijuana is still illegal for kids. But there is strong evidence showing that where marijuana is legalized and normalized, youth use soars, damaging learning and bringing addiction to the young.

It could also be that the “causation” is reversed; the reason that those failing in school are turning to marijuana is because they’re already failing in school. It’s possible, and may be true for some facing social disadvantage and psychological co-morbidities.

But surely that is no argument to therefore make dope wall-to-wall. One-in-every-eight high school kids in Colorado is now a current marijuana smoker. Moreover, teachers tell routinely another tale, of the high-performing youth who in a single semester changes dramatically—for the worse—and becomes a “stoner.” And then they lose them.

We should at least examine the true nature of the impact, and plan a response. We could explore programs like in-school screening for at-risk kids; if they’re starting to use drugs, it could be a chance to intervene and bring help.

Fixing this will require serious educational reform. Instead, inexplicably, the District determined to take us in the wrong direction – they legalized.

For education advocates and those of us especially concerned by the worsening failure of at-risk Americans in the classroom, it is time to recognize that the brain-altering effects of marijuana are now a dangerous and growing educational threat.

About the author:
* David W. Murray, Senior Fellow at Hudson Institute

Source:
This article was published by the Hudson Institute

Scientists from the University of Southampton have uncovered evidence of a previously unknown large volcanic eruption in the Caribbean Sea.

By studying ash layers, known as tephras, in marine sediments they identified an eruption that took place on Guadeloupe 2.4 million years ago.

The research, published in the journal Geology, indicates this eruption is the largest documented volcanic event in the region since that time.

Lead author, Professor Martin Palmer, at the University of Southampton, said, “Volcanic eruptions are relatively common in this area of world, but while they are very disruptive for the local community, as seen on Montserrat over the past 20 years, they do not generally have a major impact on neighboring islands. While a large eruption of the scale that we have identified would represent an important hazard to human populations in the wider region if it occurred today, it is very important to note that our research suggests that such events are rare in the Lesser Antilles – there is no indication that another large eruption is imminent.”

The research team analyzed a sediment core recovered by the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) Expedition at a site 30km southwest of Montserrat and 75km west of Guadeloupe in the northeastern Caribbean Sea. This is close to several volcanically active islands in the Lesser Antilles. The core contained an unusually thick (18 cm) tephra that was deposited 2.4 million years ago.

By analyzing the isotopes, trace elements and grain morphology of the tephra, together with volcanological models, the researchers were able to identify the origin and magnitude of the large VEI (Volcanic Explosivity Index) 6 eruption. In comparison, the largest Montserrat eruptions since 1995 had a VEI of 3-4.

Professor Palmer added, “Reconstructing the magnitude of past volcanic eruptions is important to inform predictions about future eruptions and hazards.. This is difficult to accomplish from records on land – old eruptions are often eroded away, buried beneath later eruptions, or obscured by vegetation and soil. Most volcanoes are close to the oceans, so much of the erupted material falls into seawater and accumulates on the seafloor.

“It is important to continue these types of study as they allow scientists to build a more complete picture of conditions required to generate unusually large eruptions in settings where they are normally much smaller.”

Employers have limited information when they make their first selection of the candidates for their vacancies. A CV and short motivation letter are often not sufficient to gain insight in the personality of the candidates. At the same time, there’s a lot of information to further refine a first impression. A potential source of information is the social networking website Facebook.

Researchers from Ghent University examined whether employers actually use Facebook in a first screening. They sent fictitious letters of application in response to genuine vacancies. The names of leading fictitious candidates led, via a search engine or Facebook, to just one hit on the Internet: one of the four fictitious Facebook profiles under the control of the research team. On Facebook, only the profile picture of the candidates was publicly visible. The four photographs were diverse in terms of attractiveness and personality traits (see ‘Methodology’).

Highly educated candidates more often screened via Facebook

The scientists compared the chances of positive responses for candidates with different Facebook profiles. In their application letter there was no picture.

According to Professor Stijn Baert, “The candidate with the most favorable Facebook profile picture received approximately 21% more positive responses to his application in comparison to the candidate with the least favorable profile picture. The difference in the chance to be immediately invited to a job interview even amounted to almost 40%.”

These important differences can only be driven by the view of the Facebook profile picture, so it is clear that a significant proportion of employers screens via Facebook .

Furthermore, according to the researchers’ results highly educated people are more likely to be screened via Facebook than less educated. Contrary to expectations, employers didn’t look more often on Facebook for occupations with an intense customer contact.

Effect of Facebook profile picture comparable to photograph in CV

At the same time, an alternative experiment was conducted. The researchers added the Facebook profile pictures of the first experiment directly to the CV of the fictitious applicants. The differences in attractiveness and personality between the photos proved to have about as much impact when used as Facebook profile pictures as if they are added directly into the CV.

This finding is remarkable because not all employers use Facebook to screen candidates (while they all see a photograph which added to the CV). A possible explanation why a Facebook profile picture and a CV photo can have the same impact, is that employers see a Facebook profile picture as an honest signal (since not all candidates are aware that employers use Facebook to screen candidates).

Ethical and appropriate?

The fact that employers screen via Facebook, does not imply that this is ethically and economically justified. Regarding the ethical side, employers may not be blamed. Basically, it is the responsibility of the users of social networks to manage their privacy settings and keep track of what information they share.

On the other hand, the federal anti-discrimination law of 2007 also applies to Facebook: information gathered on ethnicity, religion or belief, sexual orientation or health status of the candidate should not lead to unequal treatment.

As for the economic side of things, screening via Facebook seems efficient.

Professor Stijn Baert said that “Via Facebook, employers can collect information about candidates in a quick and easy way. Moreover, international research suggests that the impression someone gives on Facebook reflects his real personality rather than some form of self-idealization.”

Method

In total, 2112 applications were carried out in response to vacancies on the Flemish labor market. It concerned applications with pairs of male school leavers with either the TSO Trade diploma or diploma of Business Administration, or a degree in Applied Economic Sciences. Based on these qualifications, there was applied for a range of jobs in various sectors.

The CVs and motivation letters differed in detail and layout but were similar in productivity-influencing characteristics. What differed substantially, was the name of the candidates or picture. This feature was added to the two different applications in a haphazard way. The photos that were used in this study were selected for their different scores for attractiveness and personality (reliability in particular) in line with earlier research about the importance of these features in the labor market.

The field experiment was set up between November 2013 and May 2014 under the leadership of Professor Stijn Baert. Lynn Decuypere, Lisa Glorieux, Stefanie Notebaert, Anke Penninck and Willem Van Melkebeke collaborated on the study as part of their Master’s thesis research. The time costs for employers were kept to a minimum and full anonymity is guaranteed.

This study is the first in the world to measure the impact of Facebook profiles on job opportunities in a direct way. Previous research did that matter relying on surveys of employers about their Facebook use. The results of such research were possibly distorted because: (1) employers may give socially desirable answers, and (2) the indication that they used Facebook was still no indication of impact on final recruitment decisions.

A Korean-American man who says he has been detained as a prisoner in North Korea on espionage charges has been identified as a Christian missionary and a pastor who has worked in the United States and China, the Christian Post reported.

On Jan. 11, CNN broadcasted an exclusive interview with a man named Kim Dong-chul in Pyongyang who said he has was arrested more than three months ago for allegedly spying on North Korea’s nuclear program.

Although the U.S. State Department has refused to confirm Kim’s detention in Pyongyang, Kim told CNN that when he was arrested, authorities seized his USB drive and documents detailing North Korea’s nuclear program.

Although Kim admitted to obtaining North Korean nuclear files by bribing a man with military access, he asserts that he was not spying for the U.S. government but on behalf of “South Korean conservative elements.” He called on the U.S. or South Korea to rescue him.

The final objective of all investments of the government is to build a better society, said Sri Lanka’s President Maithripala Sirisena on Thursday.

The uncivilized and indecent behaviors in the society should not be allowed to be a problem for the future of the children, Sirisena added. The government is committed to build the future of the children of the country in a safer way, he said.

Sirisena made these remarks at the annual ‘Kepakaru’ scholarship award ceremony held Thursday at the Mahindarama Temple in Ethul Kotte. The scholarships are provided by Sri Lanka Nippon Educational and Cultural Center.

The President stated that the contribution of such private institutions is strength when the government is committed to strengthen the free education in the country. “Everybody should get together to perform their responsibilities for the country and the people, without waiting till the government does everything,” Sirisena said.

The Kepakaru scholarships program which was commenced with the aim of improving the Japan – Sri Lanka friendship, has been in function since 1986. It was founded by the Chief Sanga Nayaka of Sri Jayawardenapura of the Kalyani Samagri Maha Sanga Council of Kotte, General Secretary of the Nippon Educational and Cultural Center Ven. Meegasthenne Chandrasiri Thero.

President Sirisena extended his thanks for the assistance provided by the government of Japan for the development of every field in Sri Lanka.

He handed over 34 letters of the scholarship, symbolizing the provision of 1800 scholarship for the children of low income families.

By Sinisa Jakov Marusic

Macedonia’s embattled PM Nikola Gruevski announced in a TV address on Thursday that he will submit his resignation on Friday, conditioning his stepping down with the April elections date.

Gruevski said he would submit his resignation to the speaker of parliament on Friday morning. The resignation would come into force on 100 days before the elections. However, Gruevski also noted the uncertainty over the elections date following statements by opposition officials that there are no conditions for free elections as crucial reforms of the political crisis agreement have not been fulfilled.

“The deal envisages the PM to step down 100 days before elections scheduled on April 24, I want to end all uncertainty for this country to move forward. Tomorrow morning I will submit my resignation to the speaker of parliament,” Gruevski told the TV address.

Gruevski’s TV address comes in the wake of tomorrow’s visit to Skopje by the European Enlargement Commissioner, Johannes Hahn who is coming to help resolve overdue issues from the political crisis agreement, including the burning issue of the date of the elections.

“So far we have made numerous compromises. The opposition got two ministers and three deputy ministers, a special prosecutor was selected, the elections commission was elected that is dominated by opposition members. Our obligations have been fulfilled.

“Unfortunately the latest statements by SDSM have cast a shadow on the date for elections, I am against this attempt for the country to be held hostage. The elections on April 24 will end all uncertainty and show that Macedonia is strong and resistant,” Gruevski said.

According to the EU-brokered crisis agreement reached last summer aimed at resolving the country’s long-running political crisis, Gruevski was obliged to resign in the first half of January, at least 100 days before the April 24 elections.

He should allow his VMRO DPMNE party to nominate an interim premier by January 15 as an additional guarantee that he does not interfere in the elections.

The central committee of Macedonia’s ruling party VMRO DPMNE decided on Thursday night to nominate the party’s secretary general Emil Dimitriev as Prime Minister for the interim government that should be in charge until the early elections, scheduled for April 24 according to the political crisis agreement mediated by the EU.

Asked what would happen if the opposition demands that elections are postponed, VMRO DMPNE officials told media they hope that would not be the case.

The crisis in Macedonia revolves around opposition claims that covertly recorded tapes, which it has been releasing since February 2015, show Gruevski was behind the illegal surveillance of some 20,000 people, including ministers.

They insist that the tapes contain incriminating evidence against many senior officials.

Gruevski, who has held power since 2006, insists the tapes were “fabricated” by unnamed foreign intelligence services and given to the opposition to destabilise the country.

The EU crisis agreement last summer was designed to end the stand-off by putting in motion a set of reforms that would ensure free and fair elections.

Hahn arrives on Friday in Skopje to push through the crisis agreement.

“I expect that the outstanding elements of the political agreement will be resolved before or during my visit, allowing the election authorities to organise credible elections according to the agreed timetable,” Hahn said on Thursday before heading for Macedonia.

Hahn’s visit is also expected to resolve the dilemma about whether the snap polls, set for April 24, will need to be postponed or not.

In December, speculation multiplied about a possible postponement for one or even several months because of the unfulfilled tasks from the summer crisis accord.

Meanwhile the EU mediator in the talks between the government and the opposition aimed at implementing the crisis agreement, Peter Vanhoutte, summoned the political parties to renewed talks on Thursday.

“The meetings of the Political Working Group will continue until agreement is reached,” Vanhoutte told media.

He said today agreements still needed to be struck on the issue of media reform “as well as regarding the rule-book for the methodology for running and updating of the voters’ registry and the rule-book for the methodology for full access, changing and deleting data from the voters’ registry and the procedure for conducting field checks to update the registry”.

Failure to organize credible elections could plunge Macedonia into deeper chaos, in which case it would likely lose its ‘conditional’ recommendation for a start to EU accession talks.

By Seth Anziska and Tareq Baconi*

The recent return to violence across Israel, the West Bank and Gaza is harrowing, but sadly predictable. It comes on the heels of two events that underscore the desperate nature of the political landscape between Israel and the Palestinians, which is devoid of any prospects for a negotiated settlement. The devastation wrought by the attacks on Gaza over the summer of 2014, the first of these events, is still visible throughout the Strip. It evokes both the destructive consequences of Israel’s military campaign and the crippling blockade that persists in its wake. The second event – the May 2015 re-election of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – formalized a consensus in Israel against any diplomatic initiative to decide on the fate of the Palestinians.

Against the backdrop to the current unrest, this report assesses the implications of these earlier events through six weeks of fieldwork in Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Utilizing interviews with a cross-section of Palestinian and Israeli politicians, cultural figures, leaders of civil society, journalists, and academics, this study offers a broad diagnostic of the unfolding situation. These discussions underscored how cyclical violence in Israel and the occupied territories is symptomatic of entrenched conflict management, a strategy that has led to a coarsening of Israeli politics and the fragmentation of the Palestinian populace. A rights-based approach to the Palestinian struggle may offer one way to overcome this stasis, as could other policies that impose a financial and moral cost on the occupation.

Introduction: the chimera of bilateral negotiations

Following the remarkable success of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s P5+1 Iran initiative, the long-sought but elusive goal of achieving a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians may very well reappear in the final brief window of the Obama administration. Yet there is now widespread conviction that a return to bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians would not be effective. Talks between the parties will not reverse the rapid drift towards permanent Israeli hegemony over the “Greater Land of Israel” or the fragmentation of the Palestinian national movement. Rather, bilateral negotiations would likely reinforce the asymmetrical nature of Israeli-Palestinian relations at the expense of substantive measures that could, with time, halt or even reverse this dangerous drift.

The current Israeli government evinces no desire to relinquish control over any part of the occupied Palestinian territories (OPT) that could be the basis for the formation of a viable Palestinian state. The Palestinian leadership is too divided and disempowered to successfully force a shift in Israel’s approach towards the territories or to secure effective international backing for their self-determination. International efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement are in fact disincentivizing the parties from taking the requisite action for political change, e.g. undermining the prospects of a Palestinian unity government by backing Mahmoud Abbas unconditionally and marginalizing Hamas, on the one hand, or publicly condemning settlement expansion without taking corresponding action that might impose real consequences, on the other.

Together with the possibility of restarting bilateral negotiations, there has also been a renewed focus on a potential UN Security Council resolution to enshrine the parameters of a permanent settlement to the conflict, most recently spearheaded by the French government (Reed, 2015b). In discussing this prospect with Israeli and Palestinian diplomats and analysts we were faced with a range of reactions. Several Israelis suggested that the potential for terms of reference could serve to force the hand of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the wider Israeli political establishment. Despite an Israeli track record of ignoring external pressure, these interviewees argued that in the case of a resolution with wide backing, Israeli officials would have to respond to UN action with substantive movement towards a negotiated settlement or face greater international opprobrium.

For many Palestinians, a UN gesture was seen as an unlikely but possibly welcome initiative that could recalibrate the uneven nature of their struggle. Others, however, felt that continuing to push forward an initiative rooted in a two-state model failed to contend with the collapse of such an option in the wake of the second intifada. In his address to the UN, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas alluded to his decision to revisit the commitment of the Palestinian Authority (PA) to the Oslo Accords, given Israel’s failure to fulfill its own obligations (Beaumont, 2015b). There was also a great deal of cynicism about whether such an initiative could work, given the dismal track record of grand gestures at the international level. The need to reaffirm well-known policies, like a statement regarding the illegality of settlements, was deemed by some to be redundant. Many voiced more acute fears that a UN resolution would simply “kick the can down the road” for the next U.S. or European leader. It is unclear whether or not such initiatives to enshrine diplomatic parameters in international forums could be effective. But with the ever-widening gap between events on the ground and visions of a comprehensive settlement, focusing on local developments remains imperative.

Palestinians in the wake of the attacks on Gaza: fragmentation and resilience

The division of Palestinian society can perhaps be best understood as one moves from the beaches of Jaffa in Israel to the back alleys of Wadi al-Joz in East Jerusalem, and through the Qalandia and Erez checkpoints to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. In each of these distinct realities (not to mention far-flung diaspora communities), diverging contexts have produced stark differences in Palestinian life. With each community confronting a particular set of challenges, there is great concern that the overarching narrative of the struggle for Palestinian self-determination has given way to disparate, localised and easily managed initiatives.

Communities like the unrecognised villages of the Negev or the liminal space of East Jerusalem are feeling the weight of this political fragmentation in the absence of eaders or institutions that can better integrate them into the Palestinian fold. This lack of guidance has no doubt exacerbated the sense of desperation that underpins lone acts of violence, particularly in the case of East Jerusalem, referred to in one interview as the “weakest Palestinian entity”. The erosion of an effective political instrument to guide and unify these various communities into a cohesive and representative whole should be the highest priority for Palestinian leaders today.

West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem

Observers of the tensions that erupted in Jerusalem over al-Haram al-Sharif/the Temple Mount are often quick to read the violence as religiously motivated. To be sure, religion animates Jewish, Muslim, and Christian feelings about Jerusalem and the Holy Land more broadly. Religious symbols have historically served as a prime motivator of national sentiment, underpinning both violent attacks and political decision-making. Understanding the legitimising force of religion is crucial in addressing this conflict. However, reducing the violence in Jerusalem to religious sentiment alone overlooks the broader national and political crises that inhere throughout the OPT. It is therefore imperative to understand the structural issues confronting the Palestinians.

In Ramallah there is hope among the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) leadership that initiatives to internationalize their political struggle by pursuing legal avenues in the International Criminal Court (ICC) and targeted boycotts might “challenge Israeli impunity and remind the international community of their responsibility”.

The overdue adoption by the PLO of such initiatives builds on widespread popular support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, legal accountability, and international recognition of statehood. But as one PLO adviser wondered out loud, “is it perhaps too little too late?” The value of symbolic politics, like the UN or Sweden’s recognition of a Palestinian state, is only effective when accompanied by strategies to create real change on the ground. While the ICC initiative and BDS tactics can have an impact on their own, they hardly constitute a strategy for national liberation.

One of the main reasons is the dormancy of the PLO, the sole recognized representative of the Palestinian people. Over the years the PLO has been subsumed by the office of the president of the PA, the interim government established by the Oslo Accords. The PA was intended as a temporary arrangement to administer the OPT on the road to statehood.

Despite the seeming permanence of the PA, the institution of the PLO continues to be regarded as the backbone of the struggle for liberation. “Given all the problems of the PLO”, one Palestinian adviser asserted, “the institution and its mandate are still supported, even if its leadership is not.”

Mahmoud Abbas’s consistent attempts to revive the PLO – including his latest resignation from its Executive Committee – – fail to address the absence of representative leadership (Buttu, 2015). Efforts are reportedly under way to carry out reform initiatives under Egyptian auspices, which is an indication that Abbas is intent on PLO reform as part of his legacy. Despite this nod to reform, interviews with PA leaders in the West Bank revealed a centralization of decision-making around President Abbas that has excluded the rest of the leadership, leaving major decisions about the Palestinians’ future contingent on the whims of a single individual. Institutionally, there is a lack of investment in a younger generation of Palestinians and a dangerous opacity with regard to succession plans.

Perhaps as a consequence of Oslo, and particularly under Abbas’s tenure, pressing everyday concerns related to governance and autonomous self-rule have eclipsed the wider national struggle. This has bred a condition of what Israeli scholar Eyal Weizman has called “prosthetic sovereignty”, whereby the Palestinian leadership clings to vestiges of control that have little substance in the face of the ongoing occupation (Weizman, 2007: 155-57).

A major obstacle undermining the prospect for real reform is the entrenched division between Hamas in Gaza and the Fatah-dominated PA in the West Bank. Repeated calls for reconciliation belie any intent by either party to pursue lasting unity, and in fact obscure the international policies that initiated and continue to sustain this division. Discussions with members of Fatah and Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza Strip underscored a tactical short-term approach to unity talks. Many in the Ramallah-based leadership questioned Hamas’s commitment to the national struggle, e.g. by citing its loyalty to the international movement of the Muslim Brotherhood. Among Hamas’s leaders there was uniform skepticism that any reconciliation was possible and a cynical acceptance of the need to maintain the charade of unity talks for the purposes of local legitimacy. Neither party exhibits a readiness to make the concessions necessary for lasting reconciliation.

For this dynamic to change the international community must revisit policies that enshrine the division by ostracizing Hamas. Further, to move towards reconciliation, support must be extended to the PA to assume responsibility for administering the Gaza Strip. This includes the ability to address such intractable issues as the merging of government bureaucracies and attendant disagreements like the payment of civil sector wages. Ultimately, reconciliation efforts must contend with the reality that Hamas is unlikely to disarm or become subservient to the PA’s security forces in Gaza in the absence of wider progress on the national front.

In the Gaza Strip it is clear that the Israeli blockade and intermittent assaults have failed to fundamentally weaken Hamas’s hold on power. The movement appears to be quite rooted in its role as a ruling authority. Its focus on local governance, intermittent use of violence and creeping authoritarianism have all come to mark Hamas’s full control of the Strip. Despite severe financial constraints, tumultuous regional relations, and sporadic internal dissent from Gaza’s population and from more extreme fringe groups, Hamas is unlikely to relinquish any authority to its rivals. The cyclical escalations with Israel, most recently the war in the summer of 2014, and the continuing blockade only serve to bolster Hamas’s legitimacy. They allow the movement to continue to promote a vision of national liberation independently of the PLO, from which it has been effectively marginalized. This has resulted in the creation of two competing Palestinian leadership structures that indirectly serve the interests of Israel.

Palestinians in Israel

Perhaps the most hopeful aspect of the 2015 Israeli election was the success of the Joint List, a political alliance comprising Hadash, the United Arab List, Balad and Ta’al. Bringing together rival secularists and Islamists, as well as Jewish party members, the number of Knesset seats the Joint List secured exceeded expectations. As a result of tireless community organizing, thousands of first-time student voters were transported back from the West Bank, where many were undertaking their university studies, to vote at their homes in Israel. While there is no illusion that the Joint List brings unity across the Arab- Jewish divide, or even a singular vision of Palestinian politics within the 1948 borders, it remains a promising vehicle for political change.2

Structurally detached for too long from the wider Palestinian political sphere, Palestinians in Israel are today contending with the erasure of their cultural identity and persistent institutionalized discrimination that weakens the nature of their citizenship (National Committee for the Heads of the Arab Local Authorities in Israel, 2006; Jabareen, 2007; Natour, 2012). With the tacit approval of the PLO and Hamas, Palestinians in Israel have reasserted political power. Speaking with civil society leaders in Haifa, Nazareth and Jaffa, a case was made that the Arab community in Israel is poised to forge alliances with other marginalized minorities, such as the Russian community, Mizrahim and Ethiopians.3 Such an emerging constellation may serve as a platform to negotiate a new civil agenda, fight discrimination and challenge the dominance of center-right politics in Israel. However, this case may be overstated. Discussions with Israelis affirmed that many disenfranchised minority constituencies continue to view themselves as part of the right-wing consensus and would never consider a strategic alignment with Arab citizens.

This focus on the immediate struggles of Palestinians in Israel has not gone unnoticed by PLO leaders in the West Bank. With increased coordination and “cross-border” projects that tackle issues such as economic cooperation and a shared cultural agenda, the success of Palestinians in Israel is, in the view of the authors, poised to invigorate politics across divides.4 As one Ramallah-based analyst commented, “the sheer fact that discussions are happening between 1948 [Palestinians in Israel] and 1967 [Palestinians in the OPT] is in itself incredible”. Given differences in their respective priorities, most of the PLO leaders interviewed adamantly distinguished between their initiatives and the struggle of Palestinians in Israel, while still praising the latter’s achievements. One leader of Palestinian civil society in Israel proclaimed, “while each side does not intervene in the internal politics of the other, both sides are now speaking as one people”. Another PLO official remarked that “our hearts are with the Joint List. They are our people. They are not strangers.”

Among the most intriguing avenues of political activism that are being spearheaded by Palestinians in Israel is the rights-based approach to achieving full equality with their Jewish counterparts. In his speeches and interviews since the election, member of Knesset (MK) and leader of the Joint List Ayman Odeh, as well as colleagues such as Aida Touma-Sliman, MK, have positioned Palestinian civil rights at the heart of the Joint List’s struggle (Miller, 2015). In distinct and relatable terms, often in Hebrew, these leaders have also appealed to the Jewish public, opening the possibility of a joint civic space that can move away from the stranglehold of ethnic identity towards more inclusive politics. While this may be particular to Palestinians in Israel, and may conveniently sideline the reality of the occupation, it still touches on a debate that is currently unfolding among Palestinian civil society globally. Can a rights-based struggle better advance the historical pursuit of collective self-determination?

Israel in the age of Netanyahu: choosing Jewishness over democracy

The results of the May 2015 Israeli elections underscored the solidification of Israeli expansionism across the Green Line with the continuing appeal of the “Greater Land of Israel” ideology among large swathes of the voting public. Negotiations over the formation of a coalition government highlighted the persistence of Likud’s grip on the political establishment and the subservience of the so-called Left to a Netanyahu-led government (Mendel, 2015).

Rather than focus on the eclipse of the Palestinian question from public and political discourse – a valuable contribution of any opposition to the Likud party – self-proclaimed center and center-left politicians instead pandered to the traditional right-wing view. One popular MK from the Zionist Union, on being asked about the absence of the Palestinian issue in the campaign, argued that it was actually at the heart of the election. “Had the election focused on the economy, Bibi [Benjamin Netanyahu] wouldn’t have won. This election was about security, like every other election in Israel.” The MK’s insistence on the centrality of the Palestinian issue – and the inadvertent reduction of the Palestinian’s future to a security paradigm – demonstrates quite clearly how the opposition has been subsumed by a right-wing worldview.

The perception of weakness and a reluctance to appear unpatriotic have driven the opposition to focus on domestic issues, leaving the Palestinian portfolio squarely under the remit of the ruling coalition. Opposition politicians like Isaac “Bougie” Herzog, MK, the leader of the Zionist Union, and Yair Lapid, MK, the chairman of the Yesh Atid party, have in fact outflanked Netanyahu in their criticism of European efforts at settlement differentiation and on the blockade policy in Gaza (Levy, 2015). Any possibility of domestic realignment appears to lie with the revitalised politics of Israel’s minorities, including Russians, Ethiopi- ans, and Mizrahim, who have long felt patronised and condescended to by the dominant Likud and Labour establishments. As some are now arguing, their shared discontent could finally provide an opening that has long eluded minority politics in Israel. It remains unclear, however, whether or not these parties will ever sit along- side the Joint List in a unified opposition.

Netanyahu’s triumph and the collapse of any viable challenger have therefore codified a conflict management approach rather than the pursuit of a lasting diplomatic solution. Invoking possible annexation in Area C of the West Bank, as the leader of the Jewish Home Party, Naftali Bennett, has outlined, as well as continuing settlement expansion and conducting regular military operations in Gaza are the natural manifestations of this approach, and have done little to unsettle the Israeli public (Jewish Daily Forward, 2014; Jerusalem Post, 2015).

The outgrowth of this paradigm is seen most destructively in the repeated cycle of Israeli incursions into Gaza, chillingly referred to as “mowing the lawn” (Rabbani, 2014). As several interviews revealed, such an approach is justified by Israel’s selective invocation of its tumultuous regional surroundings as the latest in a series of historical excuses for inaction. With the war in Syria spilling over Israel’s northern border, unrest in the Sinai increasing tensions in the south, and acute concern over the Islamic State, realist members of the Israeli security establishment suggested that Netanyahu feeds on this climate to maintain steadfast opposition to the emergence of Palestinian sovereignty in the OPT.

The unwillingness to pay the price required to achieve Palestinian sovereignty in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem – accelerated by the second intifada, but rooted in Israeli prime minister Levi Eshkol’s “decision not to decide” on the fate of the territories in the aftermath of the 1967 war (Raz, 2012: 44) – has been accompanied by a coarsening of Israeli political culture. As one adviser to the security establishment cautioned, many Israelis will readily choose the Jewish character of their state over democracy. Faced with the threat of possible economic sanctions or boycotts, voters will persist in their commitment to a Jewish state, even an occupying one, over liberalism and full equality. While this calculus may eventually shift, there has been a marked increase in incidents of racism and religious intolerance towards non-Jewish citizens and price tag attacks on Palestinians living under occupation. The burning of Ali Dawabsheh and his parents in a firebomb attack on their Duma home by Israeli extremists was only the latest in a string of violent attacks that reflect a dangerous trend on the far right (Hirschhorn, 2015).

With the exception of rocket fire from Gaza falling on major cities like Tel Aviv (as was seen in the summer of 2014) and the recent wave of stabbing attacks throughout Israel and the West Bank, the daily reality of life under occupation has been entirely out of sight and out of mind for most Israelis. Busloads of diaspora Jews on carefully curated “Birth- right” trips typically see little to pierce this false sense of normalcy, a pernicious phenomenon that small but influential groups such as the Israel-based Breaking the Silence and the U.S.-based Encounter have attempted to reverse. The dogged persistence of such groups and the work of Israeli NGOs like Gisha and B’tselem have painstakingly documented the reality that underpins this collective detachment or denial. Certainly, the crucial constituency of West Bank settlers who regularly drive by Palestinian towns and villages and traverse checkpoints on their way into Israel, or who live under military protection in occupied cities like Hebron, must bear witness to the consequences of their privilege. Yet this does little to challenge the sense of entitlement that strengthens their often-messianic hold on the OPT.

Rapidly spreading acts of violence perpetrated by individual Palestinians in Israel and the West Bank have temporarily burst the illusion of normalcy that underpins this status quo (Thrall, 2015). Apart from fleeting recognition that the situation is untenable, however, crippling violence has in the past generally failed to engender substantive change except for a redoubled effort on the security front. For many progressive liberals in Israel with whom we spoke, such a recurring state of affairs elicits anguish, exasperation and in numerous instances a genuine desire to leave.5 This has also bred a more critical diaspora politics, particularly among younger Jewish supporters of Israel (Beinart, 2015; Grover, 2015; Sherwood, 2015). But the lack of sustained costs of the persistent occupation for Israel’s public, as several private sector leaders affirmed, could only be broken by policies that would disturb the prevailing sense of normalcy. The impact of BDS on the domestic front has so far been marginal, as can be seen by Israel’s booming economy. The EU’s successful push to differentiate between settlement products and goods manufactured in Israel proper, in contrast, offers a symbolically powerful jolt (Felderman & Casert, 2015; Lovatt & Toaldo, 2015).

Notwithstanding the difficulties involved in enacting this policy, concerned Israelis singled out such EU guidelines as a potentially effective tool to shake off collective apathy. As reactions to the FIFA initiative and the Orange telecom exchange in the summer of 2015 attested, the Israeli public seems most vulnerable when targeted initiatives bring pressure to bear on everyday life (Reed, 2015a). These pinpointed actions could potentially be more destabilising than blanket BDS policies. The latter mostly affect isolated sectors like the academy and the arts, while the former could affect the wider populace. Local business personalities who are sympathetic to the goal of achieving a negotiated two-state settlement spoke of the need for well- designed measures that could force private sector businesses to be at the forefront of pushing for a shift in policy. Such measures could also be amplified across Israeli society with the re-evaluation of selective privileges, like the need for visas to enter European countries.

With the exception of these isolated voices, the BDS campaign has been met with collective condemnation or indifference. The specter of boycotts and sanctions intensifies a siege mentality among Israelis that politicians deftly play up. Netanyahu’s assertion that Israel must fight BDS in the same way that it fights Iran demonstrates the use of fear-mongering as a means to avoid substantive change (Beaumont, 2015a). U.S. debates and legislative actions against BDS only bolster this reactive stance among Israel’s politicians. As a result, there is little impetus for Israel to depart from a paradigm of simply managing the Palestinian issue.

If any pressure were to increase on Israel, it has been suggested that Netanyahu will simply invoke regional horrors and provide minimal cosmetic change packaged as beneficent concessions.6 They will hardly meet the lowest ceiling of required diplomatic action. As Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s bureau chief, Dov Weisglass, once quipped in the context of the Gaza disengagement, Israel’s goal is “actually Formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that’s necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians” (Shavit, 2004). This remains the favoured stance of Israeli politicians today.

A Palestinian pivot?

How might Palestinians themselves break free of this stranglehold? One possible alternative that is expressed with growing conviction is the emergence of a Palestinian civil rights movement, both in the Palestinian community in Israel and the OPT, as well as in the Palestinian diaspora. Many interviewees extolled the virtues of this rights-based approach, which broadly entails the pursuit of equal citizenship under a single sovereign and fully representative entity. This would mean a retreat from an ethnocentric form of Israeli governance and a move towards a “one person, one vote” model of statehood (e.g. see Munayyer, 2015). While critics of such a pivot loudly denounce the implications of this move for maintaining the Jewish character of Israel, proponents of a rights-based approach must also consider the pitfalls. Palestinian thinkers warned that such a pivot entails a risk of inadvertently steering the struggle towards individual rights at the expense of the broader collective. This would mark the end of the Palestinian national struggle and a departure from decades of seeking sovereign statehood.

PLO leaders therefore questioned the value of turning away from the symbols of national self-determination that had traditionally been at the heart of Palestinian politics towards the more undefined notion of rights. How the two can go hand in hand in securing a better Palestinian future – rather than being seen in competing terms – remains a matter of contestation. As one interviewee suggested, “One can maintain the demands for rights without eliding the political strategy in terms of UN resolutions or the bids for statehood …. Mobilizing around Palestinian rights is easy, but how do we link that with a political agenda?” This debate is ongoing, and is happening both within and outside traditional PLO institutions (Bashir & Dakwar, 2014).

An intentional pivot towards a rights-based approach would undoubtedly serve as a form of non-violent intervention in the current political landscape. Ironically, many speak of the pivot towards rights as the prerequisite to mobilising the international community in support of a two-state outcome. In this line of thinking, the prospect of a reinvigorated Palestinian community demanding equality across historic Palestine and in the diaspora would compel the Israeli government to end the occupation for fear that the emerging demographic reality would undermine the Jewish character of the Israeli state. Notwithstanding the ethnocentric hue of this logic, it nonetheless speaks to those who remain loyal to the two-state model in both the Israeli and Palestinian communities. For these proponents, the end goal of any diplomatic solution ultimately must lead to territorial divorce.

In contrast, for advocates of the rights-based approach, this (re-)emerging discourse forces a reckoning with the prospect of national cohabitation in the territory between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. Given the unequal one-state reality that currently exists in this territorial unit, such a prospect is producing thoughtful and innovative suggestions for the creation of new models for inclusive and representative governance. These models would have to address issues pertaining to collective self-determination, as well as the right of return for Palestinian refugees. Against the current backdrop, such a pivot would be a bracing development. For it to be effective, however, it would require thoughtful preparation and a sustained effort on the part of civil society leaders to coordinate across their respective communities and combine the Palestinian national struggle with what would effectively become a civil rights movement.

How would the international community react to such a rights-based struggle? World leaders in the EU and U.S., as well as emerging powers, would certainly be hard- pressed to dismiss genuine calls for equality. At a time when both the U.S. and EU in particular are focused on the question of rights in their own domestic contexts, it will be difficult to justify inherently discriminatory polices if the Palestinian struggle is framed in this way.

Conclusion

Events in Israel and the OPT may swiftly overtake this more deliberate reconfiguration of the Palestinian struggle. The current unraveling is an unsurprising outgrowth of a dynamic that has failed to address the systematic elision of Palestinian rights, both individual and collective. This could very well indicate a tipping point that both grows out of an unsustainable reality and irrevocably transforms that reality itself (Lustick, 2013). In such a despair-inducing environment religion becomes a powerful tool for fueling further confrontation, as can be seen in Jerusalem, around Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus and in the city of Hebron.

For Palestinians, whose leadership is now indicating a shift in strategy whereby the Oslo model may be annulled, the descent into violence presents a formidable challenge. In the absence of a unified, representative and authoritative body, how do Palestinians effectively manage this re-calibration? For Israelis, who have only ever seriously considered the fate of the Palestinians when faced with the costs of Israel’s perpetual inaction, what is the threshold at which they will ultimately consider relinquishing control of an entire population and turning away from an exclusionary model of governance? For the international community, which has consistently decried the collective failure to resolve this conflict, when will individual government policies impose a degree of accountability that is a prerequisite for any substantive change on the ground (Dajani & Husseini, 2014)?

It is often easy to forget the context that underpins rapid disintegration, but we ignore these wider trends at our peril. This report has attempted to move beyond short-term reactions to unfolding events in favour of a longer-term view. History has been an infallible guide in this regard: without addressing the core grievances that animate this conflict, any settlement will surely prove elusive.

*About the authors:
Seth Anziska is a lecturer in Jewish-Muslim relations at University College London. His current book project examines the emergence of the 1978 Camp David Accords and the consequences for Israel, the Palestinians and the wider Middle East. He holds a PhD in international and global history (Columbia University, 2015) and an MPhil in modern Middle Eastern studies (University of Oxford, 2008). He is a non-resident visiting fellow at the U.S./Middle East Project.

Tareq Baconi is a visiting scholar at Columbia University’s Middle East Institute. His book Hamas: The Politics of Resistance, Entrenchment in Gaza is to be published by Stanford University Press. He holds a PhD in international relations (King’s College London, 2014) and an MPhil in international relations (University of Cambridge, 2007). He is a non-resident visiting fellow at the U.S./Middle East Project and a policy member at Al-Shabaka: The Palestinian Policy Network.

Source:
This article was published by NOREF as January Report (PDF)

The content of this publication is presented as is. The stated points of view are those of the authors and do not reflect those of the organizations for which they work or NOREF. NOREF does not
give any warranties, either expressed or implied, concerning the content.

References:
Bashir, B. & A. Dakwar. 2014. Rethinking the Politics of Israel/Palestine: Partition and Its Alternatives. Vienna: Bruno Kreisky Forum for International Dialogue.
Beaumont, P. 2015a. “Israel brands Palestinian-led boycott movement ‘Palestinian threat’.” The Guardian, June 3rd. ‹http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/03/israel- brands-palestinian-boycott-strategic-threat-netanyahu›
Beaumont, P. 2015b. “Mahmoud Abbas lists alleged Israeli violations before ‘bombshell’ UN speech.” The Guardian, September 30th. ‹http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/ sep/30/palestinian-president-mahmoud-abbas-alleged- israeli-violations-bombshell-un-speech›
Beinart, P. 2015. “Why don’t American Jewish groups represent American Jews on Iran?” Ha’aretz, July 29th. ‹http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.668571›
Buttu, D. 2015. “Palestinians need democratic representa- tion.” Gulf News, August 25th. ‹http://gulfnews.com/ opinion/thinkers/palestinians-need-democratic-represen- tation-1.1572748›
Dajani, O. M. & H. Husseini. 2014. Past the Point of No Return? A Rights-Based Framework for International Engagement in Israel/Palestine. NOREF Report. Oslo: NOREF.
Eldar, S. 2015. “Palestinians in Israel ride rip current into violence.” Al-Monitor, October 14th. ‹http://www.al-moni- tor.com/pulse/originals/2015/10/ayman-odeh-joint-list- raed-salah-islamic-movement.html#›
Federman, J. & R. Casert. 2015. “Product-labeling plan by Europe deepens Israel’s isolation.” Associated Press, November 11th. ‹http://bigstory.ap.org/article/c79b- 3002f7904a84ad4ee4fd404c8598/eu-sets-guideline-settle- ment-products-despite-israeli-ire›
Grover, E. 2015. “Attitudes of British Jews towards Israel revealed in new study.” City University London, November 12th. ‹http://www.city.ac.uk/news/2015/november/the- attitudes-of-british-jews-towards-israel›
Hirschhorn, S. Y. 2015. “Israeli terrorists, born in the U.S.A.” New York Times, September 4th. ‹http://www. nytimes.com/2015/09/06/opinion/sunday/israeli-terrorists- born-in-the-usa.html›
Jabareen, Y. T. 2007. An Equal Constitution for All? On a Constitution and Collective Rights for Arab Citizens of Israel. Haifa: Mossawa Centre.
Jerusalem Post. 2015. “Poll finds fading support for two-state solution between Israelis, Palestinians.” June 26th. ‹http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Poll-
finds-fading-support-for-two-state-solution-between- Israelis-Palestinians-407222›
Jewish Daily Forward. 2014. “With peace talks dead right- wing turns to talks of annexation.” April 29th. ‹http:// forward.com/news/breaking-news/197304/with-peace- talks-dead-right-wing-turns-to-talk-of/›
Levy, D. 2015. “Europe should demand Israeli apology for abusive response to settlements labeling spat.” Ha’aretz, November 18th. ‹http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/. premium-1.686799›
Lovatt, H. & M. Toaldo. 2015. “EU differentiation and Israeli settlements.” European Council on Foreign Relations Policy Brief.
Lubell, M. 2015. “Surge in violence tests loyalties of Israeli Arabs.” Reuters, October 14th. ‹http://www.reuters.com/ article/2015/10/14/us-israel-arabs-conflict-idUSKCN0S80 QG20151014#tfCGTgPXFisEDTob.97›
Lustick, I. 2013. “Two-state illusion.” New York Times, September 14th. ‹http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/ opinion/sunday/two-state-illusion.html›
Mendel, Y. 2015. “Diary.” London Review of Books, March 19th. ‹http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/no6/yonatan-mendel/diary›
Miller, E. 2015. “Interview: two-state solution can still trump ‘apartheid’ one-state, says Arab MK.” Times of Israel, July 30th. ‹http://www.timesofisrael.com/two-state-solu- tion-can-still-trump-apartheid-one-state-says-arab-mk/›
MITIVIM. 2015. The 2015 Israeli Foreign Policy Index. MITVIM: The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies. ‹http:// mitvim.org.il/images/Data_File_-_2015_Israeli_Foreign_ Policy_Index_-_Mitvim.pdf›
Munayyer, Y. 2015. “What Palestinians really want.” CNN, September 29th. ‹http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/29/ opinions/munayyer-palestinian-state/›
National Committee for the Heads of the Arab Local Authorities in Israel. 2006. The Future Vision of the Palestin- ian Arabs in Israel. Nazareth: Al-Worud. ‹http://www. mossawa.org/uploads/Future_vision_ENG.pdf›
Natour, S. 2012. “The culture of the ‘inside’: the post identity question.” Jadal, February 12th.
Rabbani, M. 2014. “Israel mows the lawn.” London Review of Books, July 31st. ‹http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n15/mouin- rabbani/israel-mows-the-lawn›
Raz, A. 2012. The Bride and the Dowry: Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinians in the Aftermath of the June 1967 War. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Reed, J. 2015a. “Israel: a new kind of war.” Financial Times, June 12th. ‹http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ f11c1e1c-0e13-11e5-8ce9-00144feabdc0.html›
Reed, J. 2015b. “Laurent Fabius tries to reboot peace talks with West Bank visit.” Financial Times, June 21st. ‹http:// www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2ad0e672-1816-11e5-a130- 2e7db721f996.html#axzz3oG7Lx2lB›
Shavit, A. 2004. “Top PM aide: Gaza plan aims to freeze the peace process.” Ha’aretz, October 6th. ‹http://www.haaretz. com/print-edition/news/top-pm-aide-gaza-plan-aims-to- freeze-the-peace-process-1.136686›
Sherwood, H. 2015. “Poll of British Jews finds widespread unease with Israel’s policies.” The Guardian, November 12th. ‹http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/12/ poll-of-british-jews-finds-widespread-unease-with-is- raels-policies›
Thrall, N. 2015. “Mismanaging the conflict in Jerusalem.” New York Times, October 18th. ‹http://www.nytimes. com/2015/10/19/opinion/mismanaging-the-conflict-in- jerusalem.html?_r=0›
Weizman, E. 2007. Hollow Land: Israel’s Architecture of Occupation. London: Verso.

Notes:
1. This report was co-commissioned by the U.S./Middle East Project (www.usmep.us) and NOREF.
2. Note the recent tension among Arab politicians in Israel (Eldar, 2015; Lubell, 2015).
3. One activist close to the Joint List spoke of tactical alliances with far-right politicians such as Miri Regev, MK, on funding for cultural institutions that could divert funds from more privileged Ashkenazi elites.
4. One Palestinian scholar suggested that with the gains of the Joint List, Palestinian nationalism is entering a new phase in its history.
5. Polls indicate growing dissatisfaction with Netanyahu’s foreign policy among the Israeli public, but the Palestinian issue remains low on the list of primary concerns; see MITIVIM (2015).
6. Conversely, PA officials were quick to use the threat of the Islamic State – which is no doubt a source of real anxiety – to call for a rapid resolution of the conflict.

Acknowledgements:

This study was informed by interviews with the individuals listed below, as well as many others who preferred to remain anonymous in Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. We are grateful for constructive feedback from Tamara Ben-Halim, Ahmad Khalidi, Daniel Levy, Fredrik Meiton and Henry Siegman. The authors alone are responsible for the report’s content.

Xavier Abu Eid, communications adviser, PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (June 24th 2015)
Hanan Ashrawi, senior member of the PLO (June 21st 2015)
Sam Bahour, policy adviser, Al-Shabaka: The Palestinian Policy Network (July 16th 2015)
Fadwa Barghouti, lawyer (June 24th 2015)
Bashir Bashir, research fellow, Van Leer Institute (July 1st 2015)
Ilan Baruch, former ambassador (July 19th 2015)
Hillel Cohen, historian, Hebrew University (June 16th 2015) Saeb Erekat, chief Palestinian negotiator (July 16th 2015) Jafar Farah, director, Mossawa Centre: Advocacy Centre for Arab Citizens in Israel (July 6th 2015)
Nimrod Goren, chairperson, MITVM: Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies (June 25th 2015)
Gershom Gorenberg, journalist (June 18th 2015)
Yossi Klein Halevi, senior fellow, Shalom Hartman Institute (July 2nd 2015)
Efraim Halevy, former director, Mossad (July 15th 2015) Jeff Halper, director of Israeli Committee Against House
Demolitions (June 16th 2015)
Amira Hass, journalist (June 21st 2015)
Samir O. Hulileh, CEO, PADICO Holding (June 24th 2015) Hiba Husseini, attorney (July 1st 2015)
Hassan Jabareen, general director of Adalah, Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel (July 8th 2015) Boaz Karni, managing director and treasurer, Economic Cooperation Foundation (July 15th 2015)
Raja Khalidi, economist (June 8th 2015)
Alon Liel, former ambassador (July 19th 2015)
Mikhael Manekin, executive director, MOLAD (June 25th
2015)
Salman Natour, writer (July 8th 2015)
Jack Persekian, director and head curator, Palestinian Museum (June 24th 2015)
Orni Petruschka, co-chairperson, Blue White Future (July 15th 2015)
Danny Rubenstein, journalist (June 12th 2015)
Rona Sela, curator and lecturer, Tel Aviv University (June 24th 2015)
Omar Shaban, founder and director, PalThink (June 30th 2015)
Stav Shafir, member of Knesset (July 20th 2015)
Noam Sheizaf, journalist (July 15th 2015)
Nathan Thrall, senior analyst, International Crisis Group (June 11th 2015)
Celine Touboul, senior project manager, Economic Cooperation Foundation (July 15th 2015)

Can you imagine society as if it were in a fairy tale? What is that? The society in which all its citizens are equal, not because of he realization of a communist’s goal — “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs“ — but because of the realization of the goal of humanity  (at least, this is my modest opinion) is “From each according to his respect for rule of law, to each according to his respect for rule of law. “

Is it contradictio in adiecto? Yes, but there is a Catch 22 within it. What? Democracy is procedure, but democracy should be based and underlined on the rule of law for which there will not be untouchables, regardless of how much money and/or political and/or judicial connections someone has.

How we will fix that worldwide? That problem is similar in every country, within every society, every race, every color, every gender.

Let us think about changing the  Constitutions of every country (it is the highest judicial act in every country in the World – Of course, only in Great Britain they do now have written Constitution, but it can be fixed as well)? Why? It is very simple and the answer is the following – we should amend every Constitution with this paragraph:

1. Independent citizen body, made of highly independent intellectuals, established on the base of knowledge within the social circle, elected on special elections by the citizens, will be constituted to do the following, every six months within four years of the elected period:

a) Compare the promises given by the politicians and their achievements within first six months;

b) Recommend the following steps for the next six months to improve, if there is a need, given promises to become real;

c) At the end of election period, every four years, to decide if those politicians (it has to be achieved at least 50 % promises given prior to elections) can go for the next election cycles.

Primitivism, hypocrisy, and ignorance with the acronym PHI should be written at the entrance of every country’s border around the world until we implement the above mentioned Amendment.

How that Amendment to the Constitution will change and make economy better. Simple as it is: The cconomy is deeply connected with politics and when politicians understand that they are here to serve the people instead vice verse, economy will bloom.

How?

It will be connected with understanding the issue that if you fix politics, the economy will be fixed due to the law of nature – society n which has been taken care about general social and political issues – the economy will follow.

Why?

Because the rule of law will affect the economy as well as “needs and demands”. Economy we cannot see aside from political and social issues. The fairy tale that neoliberal markets will fix it all is a brutal cruelty of ne0-capitalists that richness has grown rapidly within the last decade, while at the same time the majority of the world is starving. Not starving in a sense of Africa in the mid-XX century, but starving in a sense of being put aside of real development due to new challenges of new technologies – can you imagine that New Japanese Hotel staff – robots are transferred in Pakistan rural area?

Yes, that is the real world – two drastically shown ends of the current World.

Is that the future for humanity?

We are on the edge of civilization, we know this because the poverty is not any more just a poverty for the need for food. The poverty is now that we have returned back to 70% of the countries worldwide into the feudalism where people are treated like livestock – where they are there to earn the money and goods not for themselves, but for their owners – feudalistic capitalists who, through corporations that own not just people, but also the countries itself.

Of course, their answer will be: Why not do it as well, Sabahudin Hadžialić? You could have done it? You have been offered to join them?

My answer, as all real human answer should be is: How many lives do you have and what you will take with you when you return back to Energy, God, Allah, Buddha? None, zero, nada! Is it than better for all of us to live our current life as better as we can? But, not to have others to work for us and to have us working together for their prosperity, and respecting “one for all, all for one.”

If we focus on humanity as the goal we can fight against cruelty as a reality and all the problems such as nationalism, chauvinism, and fundamentalism will disappear like the smoke of extinct fire. All around the World – from the East to the West and from the South to the North – without exception.

So, what is the first step?

Just follow the words (in reality) of the one who has been crucified because he wanted to share well with others.

I love God, but without religion.

Because, I am the religion.

If I am a human – in the first place if I amend my Constitution with above paragraph.

Why not?

The recent incident involving the US sailors who were rounded up and then quickly released after their boats ventured inside Iran’s territorial waters represents a positive case of “deep diplomacy” stemming from the marathon nuclear negotiations. As Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has noted in his twitter message after the incident, there are important lessons to be drawn from this incident.

Perhaps the biggest lesson is a reminder about the importance of high level communication between the two countries that can be used for non-nuclear purposes. Another lesson is the importance of avoiding accidental warfare and unnecessary flash points that can easily spiral out of control.

Regarding the latter, although Persian Gulf is governed by the international maritime laws, these laws are not enough and due to the current military over-crowding there needs to be additional safety measures in place in order to avoid accidental warfare. After all, the two US military boats were highly armed and things could have escalated and lives lost during that incident.

One possible remedy is the adoption of an ‘incident at sea agreement’ between Iran and the US, aimed at complementing the present diplomatic channels by opening a new military-to-military channel of communication, one that would cover not only the water but also air, in light of the reports of US flights near the Farsi island after the arrest of US sailors. Given the proximity of forces particularly during the passage through the narrow channels of Strait of Hormuz, the benefit of an incident at sea agreement would be to provide a new venue to ensure the peace and tranquility of the Persian Gulf waters.

To open a caveat hear, ten years ago this author and the current US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, who headed a security program at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, collaborated on a joint recommendation to both Iran and US regarding an incident at sea agreement. Mr. Carter who favored this idea then informed this author that the response from Pentagon had been negative. That was then, but now that the Pentagon is headed by Mr. Carter perhaps there is a chance to revisit this proposal that Mr. Cater himself co-authored.

Of course, it goes without saying that the purpose of an incident at sea agreement is highly limited and does not spell the end of hostilities or the like between the parties, in light of the experience of US-USSR agreement that was signed in early 1970s and was meant to ‘regulate’ rather than transcend the Cold War. Similarly, a US-Iran incident at sea agreement would conceivably contain clauses on avoiding accidental collision, hostile maneuvers in vicinity of the other side’s ships, etc. It would have to be tailored to the specific contingencies of the Persian Gulf and, perhaps, be limited in initial duration, subject to renewal in a few years.

On Iran’s side, one potential objection is that such an agreement may give a dose of legitimacy to the US’s military presence in Persian Gulf. The fact of the matter is, however, that due to the present and clear threat of terrorism, the US armed forces operate in the region and will likely do so for the foreseeable future. It is therefore in Iran’s national security interest to consider a time-bound incident at sea agreement with the US, for the sake of avoiding incidental warfare.

A Muslim woman and a Jewish man were kicked out of a Donald Trump presidential campaign rally after staging a silent protest against the Republican frontrunner, who has called for a ban on Muslims entering the US.

Rose Hamid, a 56-year-old flight attendant, wearing a head scarf and loose fitting green shirt reading “Salam. I come in peace.” stood in silence looking at the podium alongside a Jewish immigration attorney named Marty Rosenbluth.

Both of them were wearing “yellow star-shaped badges that bore the word ‘Muslim’ and were intentionally reminiscent of the yellow badges Jewish people were forced to wear under Nazi rule.

As always, this wonderful act of Jewish-Muslim solidarity, received scant attention in the media compared to the hateful scapegoating acts of Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.

For example, attacks on Britain’s 280,000 Jews and 2.5+ million Muslims, including assault and harassment, soared by more than 60% over the past year, London police statistics show.

The Metropolitan Police dealt with 483 anti-Jewish incidents in the 12 months between November 2014 and November 2015, a 62% increase over the same period last year. The London police also recorded a similar 64% rise in anti-Muslim incidents, for a total of 818 such attacks.

The fact that there was an almost identical rise (60%+) in hate crimes against both Jews and Muslims is evidence that the source of these hate crimes springs from within a small minority of the majority population that is scapegoating both Jews and Muslims after years of high unemployment and economic distress.

Widespread doubt about America’s future has split Americans in half — 49% to 49% — on whether “America’s best days are ahead of us or behind us.” This anxiety had produced a specific scapegoat; the religion of Islam, as can been seen in a major rise in Islamophobia in the U. S.

An American poll by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center released 12/15/15 found that a large majority of white evangelical Protestants, as well as smaller majorities of older Americans and those with less education, said Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence among its believers.

Overall, Americans split evenly on the question of whether Islam is more likely to encourage violence than other religions; 46% saying it is more likely and 45% saying it was not, the Pew poll found. That close division has been constant for most of the last decade in Pew polls.

But today, among Republicans, 68% call Islam more violent, Pew found, while among Democrats, only 30% did. Among people who identified themselves as conservative Republicans, 77% called Islam violent, while among self-identified liberal Democrats, 73% said it was no more violent than other religions.

And another poll released a month prior to the Pew study shows that a majority of Americans (56%, including even larger majorities in all the major Christian denominations) say the values of Islam are at odds with American values according to the Public Religion Research Institute’s annual American Values Survey (of 2,695 U.S. adults).

But not all American religious communities have the same views of Islam. Three large groups of Americans had a major increase in Islamophobia; and three smaller groups only had a small rise, or no rise at all.

The three groups of Americans having large numbers of people agreeing with the statement that the values of Islam are at odds with American values are:

• white evangelical Protestants (up 14 points to 73 percent from 59 percent in 2011);
• white mainline Protestants (up 16 points to 63 percent from 47 percent);
• and Catholics (up 20 points to 61 percent from 41 percent).

The three groups that did not show a significant rise in Islamophobia are all American minorities: only 55 percent of black Protestants said Islamic values were incompatible with American values (up only 4 points from 51 percent) ; and among Jews and “nones,” people who claim no religious label, there was no rise at all, because statistically speaking a one point difference (to 42 percent from 41 percent) is well within the surveys margin of error.

Perhaps our religious and political leaders could help improve interfaith relations in 2016 by constantly repeating the important lesson taught by the German Protestant theologian Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the cowardice of German intellectuals following the Nazis’ rise to power; and the subsequent purging of their chosen targets, group after group:

First they arrested Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they arrested Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they arrested Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

By James Stafford

The rift between Saudi Arabia and Iran has quickly ballooned into the worst conflict in decades between the two countries.

The back-and-forth escalation quickly turned the simmering tension into an overt struggle for power in the Middle East. First, the execution of a prominent Shiite cleric prompted protestors to set fire to the Saudi embassy in Tehran. Saudi Arabia cut off diplomatic relations and kicked out Iranian diplomatic personnel. Tehran banned Saudi goods from entering Iran. Worst of all, Iran blames Saudi Arabia for an airstrike that landed near its embassy in Yemen.

Saudi Arabia’s Sunni allies in the Arabian Peninsula largely followed suit by downgrading diplomatic ties with Iran. However, recognizing the dire implications of a major conflict in the region, most of Saudi Arabia’s Gulf State allies did not go as far as to entirely sever diplomatic relations, as Saudi Arabia did. Bahrain, the one nation most closely allied with Riyadh, was the only one to take such a step.

Many of them are concerned about a descent to further instability. Nations like Kuwait and Qatar have trade links with Iran, plus Shiite populations of their own. Crucially, Qatar also shares a maritime border with Iran as well as access to massive natural gas reserves in the Persian Gulf. These countries are trying to split the difference between the two belligerent nations in the Middle East. “The Saudis are on the phone lobbying countries very hard to break off ties with Iran but most Gulf states are trying to find some common ground,” a diplomat from an Arab country told Reuters. “The problem is, common ground between everyone in this region is shrinking.”

The effect from the brewing conflict on oil is murky, but for now it is not having a bullish impact. In the past, geopolitical tension in the Middle East, especially involving large oil producers, would add a few dollars to the price of oil. This risk premium captured the possibility of a supply disruption into the price of a barrel of crude. However, recent events barely registered in oil trading. That is because the global glut in oil supplies loom larger than any potential for a supply disruption. Oil dropped to nearly $30 per barrel on January 12 and oil speculators are not paying any attention to the tension in the Middle East. Also, the conflict could simply manifest itself in an intensified battle for oil market share. Iran has put forth aggressive goals to ramp up oil production in the near-term. And Saudi Arabia continues to produce well in excess of 10 million barrels per day while discounting its crude in several key markets, particularly in Europe in order to box out Iran.

But what if the current “Cold War” between Saudi Arabia and Iran turned hot?

Saudi Arabia has a variety of reasons to not back down, not the least of which is the very real sense of being besieged on multiple fronts. An article in The New Statesman by former British Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, John Jenkins, clearly laid out the threats that Saudi Arabia sees around every corner: extremists at home; a growing Iran; toppled allies from the Arab Spring; low oil prices; and a fractured relationship with the United States. The nuclear deal between Iran and the West was confirmation on the feeling in Riyadh that it is becoming increasingly insecure.

Already the two rivals have engaged in proxy battles in Yemen and Syria, supporting opposite sides in those wars. A full on direct military confrontation would be something entirely different, however. It would have catastrophic consequences for oil markets, even when taking into account the current supply overhang. Dr. Hossein Askari, a professor at The George Washington University, told Oil & Gas 360 that a war between the two countries could lead to supply disruptions, with predictable impacts on prices.

“If there is a war confronting Iran and Saudi Arabia, oil could overnight go to above $250, but decline [back] down to the $100 level,” said Askari. “If they attack each other’s loading facilities, then we could see oil spike to over $500 and stay around there for some time depending on the extent of the damage.”

While not impossible, war is speculative at this point. Also, $250 and $500 per barrel are numbers pulled out of thin air, and may seem a bit sensationalist. But despite the glut in global oil production – somewhere around 1 mb/d – the margin from excess to shortage is thinner than most people think. OPEC is producing flat out and spare capacity is actually remarkably low right now. The EIA estimated that OPEC spare capacity stood at just 1.25 mb/d in the third quarter of 2015, the lowest level since 2008.

As a result, even though it remains a remote possibility, direct military confrontation between Saudi Arabia and Iran could well put oil back into triple-digit territory in short order.

Article Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/War-Between-Saudi-Arabia-And-Iran-Could-Send-Oil-Prices-To-250.html

The US Department of Defense announced Thursday the transfer of Guantánamo prisoner and Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) client Fahd Ghazy to Oman. Ghazy was only 17 when he was brought to Guantánamo in February 2002.

Ghazy was never charged with a crime and had been cleared for release since 2007.

“Almost 14 years ago to the day, Fahd arrived at Guantánamo as a boy, shackled and hooded. Today – finally – he is free. I commend Oman for the profound humanitarian gesture of welcoming Fahd and offering him a new home,” said Mr. Ghazy’s attorney, Omar Farah of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

“There was never much doubt that Fahd’s imprisonment was unnecessary – he was cleared for release nearly a decade ago – yet he grew up at Guantánamo waiting for successive presidents to correct a glaring injustice. While Fahd and his family look to the future, I cannot help but reflect on how cruel his detention was and marvel at how Fahd preserved his humanity throughout.”

Ghazy was one of the last men to have been detained at Guantánamo as a juvenile. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in 2006 and withdrew it in 2009, shortly before President Obama cleared him for the second time. The story of Mr. Ghazy’s anguish and resilience is told through moving interviews with his family in the short film Waiting for Fahd: One Family’s Hope for Life Beyond Guantánamo. Ghazy also shared a personal message to the film’s audience.

On January 11, 2016, Guantánamo entered its 15th year in operation. CCR attorneys say it is imperative that the president step up the pace of transfers and review boards and ensure and end to bureaucratic inaction within the Pentagon. They emphasize that the prison at Guantánamo must be emptied and closed, and note that several CCR clients – among them Tariq Ba Odah, Ghaleb Nasser Al-Bihani, Muhammadi Davliatov, Mohammed Al-Hamiri, and Mohammed Kamin – remain imprisoned without charge.

As of January 31, 2016, Guantánamo will have been open longer under President Obama than it was under President Bush.